The purpose of this three-part series about Conrad Murray’s CNN interview is not to try and get to the truth of what happened on the fateful night Michael Jackson died – this will be  eventually known to us from the evidence and scientific findings which will one day connect all dots.

The purpose of this series is to show the reason why CNN gave Murray a platform to speak on the fifth anniversary of Michael’s death, and why Don Lemon played such a dummy while Murray was freely relating to us a new series of his lies.

By the end of the interview Don Lemon made this reason absolutely clear and when you read the remaining part of it, it will become obvious to you too.

“WHY WOULD YOU RECORD THAT?”

LEMON:  Do you think that he was up to these – this 50 – this mammoth 50-show extravaganza that he was to star at the – in London?

MURRAY:  He was not.

LEMON:  OK.

MURRAY:  Michael was offered initially 10 shows.  It went to 31 and then subsequently to 50.  But no one knows that he was actually offered 100 shows.

LEMON:  OK. This was something – and, by the way, I covered your trial.  I was there.

MURRAY:  Yes.

LEMON:  I sat right behind the family, right, right behind the mom and the dad. And I want – this was very – when they played it, very emotional in court.

MURRAY:  Sure.

LEMON:  All right, you recorded Michael talking about the show.  Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JACKSON:  When people leave this show – when people leave my show, I want them to say, I’ve never seen nothing like this in my life.  Go.  Go.  I’ve never seen nothing like this.  Go.  It’s amazing.  He’s the greatest entertainer in the world. (END AUDIO CLIP)

LEMON:  Dr. Murray, that is disturbing.  Anyone in that condition, why would you continue to give him drugs and then give him Propofol? 

Isn’t it interesting how the tape is reproduced by Lemon again and again but always without its most essential part? The part where Michael speaks about God and children, where he calls them angels and says how it hurts him to see them ill. Never will you hear the media play it…

And could someone please explain to Don Lemon that the condition Michael was talking in is actually not that disturbing – any doctor would tell you that it is a normal condition of patients under sedation. Anesthesiologists hear their patients talk like that all the time.

LEMON:  And why would you record that?

MURRAY:  Well, first of all, I was accused of recording that so that I can take advantage of Michael down the road.  And that was not the case. I did not even recognize or realize that that recording was actually on my phone.  Michael had asked me, well, as far as I could look back, how much he snores at night.  And I would speak to him about that.  He wanted to record that, not only on tape, but on camera.  I actually had just learned from my daughter who taught me to do talks and one of the apps on the phone.

LEMON:  How to work it.

MURRAY:  Right.

LEMON:  But the question behind that is, so you were trying to monitor his sleep pattern, whether or not he was snoring, and that’s how you got that recording.

MURRAY:  That’s exactly how that was done when I look back in retrospect, yes.

LEMON:  So then why would you continue?  Because if he was…

MURRAY:  Interestingly – good question. If you look at my – if you listen to that recording, you hear a man that is clearly in the sleep state of going to sleep.  But he is alert.  His conversation makes sense.

LEMON:  His mind is still active, even though he’s in a sleep state.

MURRAY:  Yes. But if you look at my statement to the police, I explained to them, to the police, all that Michael Jackson wanted, including the children’s hospital.  Michael was just reiterating his dream to me.  At the end of that state, of that recording, did you hear what he says in the end?  He says, I’m asleep.

LEMON:  I’m asleep.

The recording was made on May 10^th which was almost immediately after Murray’s work for Michael began. Murray’s previous version why he made that recording was that he pushed the button by accident and didn’t even know that it had been made. And now he says that it was done on purpose and at Michael’s request too.

To explain this glaring controversy Murray says that this is what he remembers “looking back in retrospect” and “as far as he can look back” which suggests that Murray is another of those famous victims of amnesia. These days there are so many of those who suddenly recover their memories about Jackson that it is not even funny any more.

Another question which is not that funny is how come Murray began recording Michael even before he fell asleep if his only purpose was the “snore”? Of course it is another of his lies as the intention was to record Michael speaking and take advantage of him down the road as Murray himself worded it.

However the least funny part of the snore issue is that all patients under propofol start snoring at some point and it is considered by anesthesiologists no fun at all.

Snoring under propofol happens due to muscles relaxation when the tongue falls back and blocks the airway.  It is regarded as a very dangerous sign and precursor to a breathing arrest.  In a situation like this a proper doctor should act swiftly and lift the patient’s chin to unblock the airway – instead of fumbling with his IPad and recording the patient, of course.

The fact that Murray is clueless that the snore was actually a grave sign of his own negligence shows that his ignorance of the subject is so boundless that he doesn’t even realize that his words may be turned against him as a proof of his incompetence. So the more Murray talks the more he reveals how inadequate he was for the job he so carelessly undertook.

“I WOULD BE GUILTY AS SIN”

LEMON: OK.  Let’s move on.  Let’s talk about the drugs, right, more about the drugs.  I want to play this bit from my documentary, and then we will talk about it.

MURRAY:  Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTOR:  Two bottles of Lorazepam.  Lidocaine bottle.

LEMON:  DA Walgren added into evidence each vial and bottle found at Jackson’s house one after another.

WALGREN:  To take a patient with Valium, lorazepam, midazolam, and Propofol and to leave them unattended in that state is medical abandonment. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON:  Did you abandon Michael Jackson, your friend, medically?  Are you guilty of that?

MURRAY:  Absolutely not.  David Walgren. He is way off-field. Abandonment has a clear definition in medicine, and that’s not the case, neither did I abandon him on anything he was giving.  I have said very clearly, if Michael Jackson was in the Propofol infusion, that was a drip for three hours, as Dr. Shafer stated, from 9:00 until 12:00, and I left him with an infusion running, I would be guilty as sin, and I can accept that. But he was not.

LEMON:  And this bag that was ripped open with the Propofol bottle laying inside of the I.V. bag?

MURRAY:  Interestingly, interestingly…

LEMON:  And you talk than on your video.

MURRAY:  Yes, Propofol comes with a hanging sleeve.  It’s almost like opening a can of soda.  You pop it open.  You hang the bottle. That bottle was discovered with that device being completely intact.  Why would I take something so simple, take a bag of saline, cut it open, empty the fluid, then stick a Propofol bottle inside of the bag, and then take the bag to become the hanging contraption.

LEMON:  If you knew all of this…

MURRAY:  Yes.

LEMON:  … and I said I was there – and everyone kept saying, is he going to take the stand, is he going to take the stand?  Why didn’t you do it at trial?  I’m – were you thinking all of this at trial?

MURRAY:  Because they had never proven a case. First of all, they needed to have a drip, a continuous infusion.  That was not the case.  If you look at the numbers…

LEMON:  But my question is, Dr. Murray, why didn’t you take the stand in defense of yourself?

MURRAY:  Because my attorney and I agreed that they had not proven the case against me, so there was no reason to take the stand.  That was the legal advice.

LEMON:  Your attorney was wrong.

MURRAY:  Well, would it have changed anything, Don? If you look at the DA, the district attorney, Walgren, that altered evidence in the courtroom, tampered with evidence outside of the courtroom also…

LEMON:  Yes.

Why “Yes” from Don Lemon? I watched every minute of the trial and DA Walgren did not alter any evidence!

In Don Lemon’s place a much more appropriate reaction would be to ask why Murray was tampering with the evidence and collecting the vials, and the call to 911 was not made until the room was tidied up. Lemon could also ask Murray why he was collecting items from the floor even after the body was carried out and the paramedic came back to pick up some of his things.

The appellate court ruling recalled this strange episode too:

• As paramedics prepared to transport Mr. Jackson to UCLA medical center, appellant was observed in Mr. Jackson’s room alone with a trash bag in his hand. He was picking up items off of the floor near the nightstand…. His efforts to clean-up the scene also show guilt.  

As regards the evidence of Murray’s guilt the appellate court produced so much of it that the Lawmed site noted that Murray was buried with it and should be embarrassed that he addressed them with an appeal at all:

• “The court buries Murray in the mountain of evidence presented against him. You get the feeling that there is a between-the-lines message “you should be embarrassed to have even tried to claim the evidence against you was insufficient to find you guilty.”    

And DA Walgren had a very good reason for producing all those Lorazepam and Midazolam bottles in their abundance. The sleep expert who testified at Murray’s trial said that those drugs were not to be prescribed for treating insomnia at all and their long-term use was even counterproductive for it.

The reason is because the benzodiazepines given by Murray form a dependency which in its turn causes restlessness, agitation and anxiety which was noticed by Murray but was attributed by him to a Demerol withdrawal. Murray’s own witness Dr. Waldman agreed that Michael’s restlessness could be the result of those benzodiazepines.

The appellate court said about it:

• Dr. Kamangar, the expert in sleep medicine, concluded that appellant acted in extreme deviation from the standard of care in his treatment of Mr. Jackson’s insomnia. Dr.Kamangar also explained the physician can use drugs that are approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to treat insomnia—non-benzodiazepines—and if unsuccessful can use the four FDA approved benzodiazepines in tablet form (Triazolam, Temazepam, Flurazepam, and Prosom). Appellant, however,administered Diazepam, Lorazepam, and Midazolam, benzodiazepines that were not approved by the FDA to treat insomnia. 

• He also opined the intravenous form of these drugs that appellant used was inappropriate for long-term treatment of insomnia.

In conclusion the appellate court ruling had the following to say about Murray:

• Appellant’s callous disregard for Mr. Jackson’s health and safety was shown throughout the trial from the manner in which he administered a number of dangerous drugs to Mr. Jackson without the appropriate medical equipment, precautions or personnel in place, and to the manner in which he left Mr. Jackson unattended. 
• The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Jackson was a vulnerable victim and that appellant was in a position of trust, and that appellant violated the trust relationship by breaching standards of professional conduct in numerous respects. 
• The evidence also showed that the crime involved planning and sophistication. Appellant ordered large amounts of drugs from out of state, and kept no records of his treatment of Mr. Jackson. 
• Appellant also engaged in a pattern of lies and deception before and after the crime. It appears that he attempted to clean up the crime scene and failed to provide accurate information to first responders and hospital personnel.  Appellant gave the police incomplete and misleading information during his interview. 
• Finally, the evidence presented at sentencing showed that appellant failed to take responsibility and displayed a lack of remorse throughout the proceedings.

Indeed, guilty as sin.  

“THEY HAVE ADDED TUBINGS”

MURRAY:  … yet, still, jurors are sitting there and watching a prosecutor alter evidence to make his case, to win, and they would still find a man guilty.

LEMON:  Quickly, you go through all of these claims about altering evidence, about coercion and collusion of witnesses and all of that.

MURRAY:  Yes.  Sure.

LEMON:  The appeals court has said they will not rehear your case, that it’s been proven, open-and-shut case.  What are you going to do now?

MURRAY:  Well, the appeals case made a mistake.  They have added tubings. There were no two tubings, as Dr. Shafer stated in this case.  (INAUDIBLE) There were three tubings.  I have never given Michael Jackson anything with three tubings.

LEMON:  So…

MURRAY:  And my next step, if California does not help me to right this wrong, I’m going to the Supreme Court, the law of the land.  I must believe that our judicial system does have integrity somewhere.

LEMON:  Stay with me, Dr. Murray, because, in some ways, you knew Michael Jackson better than anyone.  You were the last person to see him alive. When we come right back, we are going to talk about who Michael was behind those closed doors.

While they are in a commercial break let me say that in his recent video lecture Murray claimed something we hadn’t heard before. As could be easily expected this is a new theory again and will therefore be covered here in detail, but before that let me remind you what those “three tubings” were all about.

Those who watched Murray’s trial know that the prosecution first proved Murray’s guilt on a scientific basis and in theory only.

1) They recalculated the traces of propofol left in MJ’s urine into the amount initially infused into his blood. It turned out to be more than 2000mg (200ml) which is enough for several hours of general anesthesia. This refuted Murray’s theory of 25mg as ridiculous and proved that Michael was on a long drip for many hours.

2) Computer simulations showed that the propofol dripping into Michael’s blood eventually reached the level when his breathing stopped. Since Murray was away there was no chance he could notice it, and even if he had been in the room but not closely monitoring his patient he could have overlooked it too.

It is extremely sad to imagine it but when breathing slows down and eventually stops the process is silent and in the absence of monitoring equipment is easy to overlook. This is why having the necessary equipment was so essential.

3) The amount of propofol found in the urine and computer simulations of the process corresponded to each other and once again showed that Michael was on a continuous infusion of propofol and died under a drip.

Now the only thing that remained to be done was demonstrate how Murray did it and what arrangement of tubings he had on his IV stand.

The IV stand had two saline bags on it – one with a saline solution, and the other one with a slit in it and an empty propofol bottle inside. This second bag was taken off the IV stand by a bodyguard and hidden in the bag following Murray’s orders.

The tubings on the IV stand had a Y-arrangement – each bag had its own tubing which joined at some point and from there on the two liquids (saline and propofol) flowed together.

The lower part of the tubing did show the traces of propofol, the upper part from the saline bag did not, and the upper part from the propofol bag was missing – at least at the moment the police arrived.

The prosecution argued that the missing tubing had been hidden by Murray in the same way he wanted to hide the bag itself (only it was too big to go into his pocket and was therefore thrown into a trash bag from which it was later retrieved).

Murray claimed there was one tubing and he diluted propofol and saline in the proportion of 1mg  of propofol per 1ml of saline

And now in his video lecture Murray solemnly declares that he never used the second bag at all and consequently there could never be a second tubing in principle.

He now says that he took one saline bag, injected or drained propofol there, shook the bag to mix the solution and then put Michael on a drip of this diluted propofol.

This way the concentration was minimal (1mg of propofol per 1ml of saline), the sedation was light and there was no danger to the patient.

Murray:

“What if I wanted to give 1000mg of propofol in 1000ml of saline? I would take one of the large bottles, I would drain it into the bag or I would extract by using the syringe multiple times. I would then shake it together and I would have a concentration of 1mg of propofol per 1ml of saline”

To look into this new Murray’s theory I first needed to check whether the method allegedly used by him was okay to use at all. The available information was controversial – some said it was possible to mix the two liquids in one bag and some said that it wasn’t. A very long and thorough check-up finally rewarded me with detailed instructions which dotted the i’s and explained on what strict conditions the method could be used.

1) The first condition arises from propofol’s ability to quickly generate bacteria and says that it is okay to inject propofol through a special port in a saline bag but only if every possible aseptic precaution is taken – cleaning the propofol seal and port of the bag with an alcohol pad, using the syringe only once, etc.

2) The second condition is that propofol can be diluted with saline only in a very specific proportion and its concentration should be no less than 2mg of propofol per 1ml of the saline solution.

The instructions said about it:

• Propofol can be used for infusion undiluted or diluted. The maximum dilution must not exceed 1 part of Propofol with 4 parts of 5% w/v glucose solution, 0.9% w/v sodium chloride solution, 0.18% sodium chloride & 4% dextrose solution (minimum concentration 2 mg propofol/ml). The mixture should be prepared aseptically (controlled and validated conditions preserved) immediately prior to administration and must be administered within 12 hours after preparation.

• Final propofol concentration must not be below 2 mg/ml.

   http://www.drugs.com/uk/propofol-10-mg-ml-emulsion-for-injection-infusion-leaflet.html

The unstable emulsion separates into two layers (picture C)

Why not to be below 2mg/ml?

The reason is an extremely serious one. Propofol is a fat emulsion, and saline is a water solution, and fat does not mix with water and if propofol is diluted too much, the commercially made emulsion becomes ‘unstable’ and this means that fat and water will separate into layers leaving propofol floating on top of the saline water (see picture C).

For a many-hour drip this is a fundamental issue. If the diluted propofol is unstable and separated all the more so, the drip into a patient’s blood will also be unstable.

First it will contain a thinly diluted propofol and at some point it will suddenly change into a high-concentration propofol floating on top of the mix, thus drastically changing the dosage of the drug dripping into the patient’s blood.

So if we are to believe Murray’s new story, it will actually prove only one thing – that he was terribly risking the life of his patient by subjecting him to an unbalanced solution which could bring about a stop in his breathing at any moment in time.

The unstable emulsion is a threat to a patient’s life and this is why the actual label on propofol does not even allow diluting it. The instructions do allow it but on a very strict condition that the minimal solution should not be lower than 2mg of propofol per 1ml of saline, while Murray says he routinely made the concentration twice as low.

Of course he invented this story to show that he was giving Michael minimal sedation, but in his zeal to lie and justify himself a little bit overdid it.

But even this is not all yet. If you analyze his theory further, things will become even worse.

He claimed that he injected and drained propofol into the bag. To inject Murray would have to draw propofol from a vial ten times and inject it into the 1000ml saline bag ten times too, each time keeping to the top aseptic rules (which I highly doubt he did, knowing Murray’s negligence and filthy sanitation habits).

And if he drained propofol into the bag, well… I don’t know how he would do that.

Saline drip

Inspection showed that the saline bag is sealed on all sides, so the only remaining option for draining something inside it would be making a cut in it and pouring propofol in.

And if done this way all aseptic precautions could be thrown out of the window, of course.

What I mean by this small exercise is that no matter what new lie Murray comes up with, it doesn’t make his life any easier. It only raises more questions about his adequacy and competence, and the standards of care he as a doctor was supposed to adhere to (but didn’t).

In short, whichever way Murray tells his story it always comes to one and the same thing – the type of care he was providing to Michael Jackson was making the killing of his patient an inevitable outcome.

DR. MARKMAN USED PROPOFOL FOR 5 YEARS

LEMON:  Michael Jackson was loved by millions of people all around the globe, but no one was a part of his world the way Dr. Conrad Murray was. And he is back with me now exclusively. You were the last person to see Michael Jackson alive.

MURRAY:  Correct.

LEMON:  Correct?

MURRAY:  Mm-hmm.

LEMON:  So I want you to take us inside of that room, and I want you to tell us about your relationship with him first. But I want you to hear from some of your patients, what they said about you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY CAUSEY, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  He saved my life, and we have grown close over the last 11 years.

ANDREW GUEST, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  We’re all alive today because of Dr. Murray.  He is a great man.

DENNIS HIX, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  He is the most compassionate man that I have ever met, best doctor I have ever had. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON:  What is your reaction to that?  Do you miss practicing medicine?

MURRAY:  Of course.  I have never worked a day in my life, because I have enjoyed doing it so much and making the difference in the lives of many.

LEMON:  You realize that you’re vilified around the world, right?  I’m sure you realize that.

MURRAY:  That may be so. But I’m not a villain.  I can tell you – just let me take you back just briefly.

Dr. Shafer stated that I was reckless, that I used Propofol at home and that should never be done.  All of the doctors who testified in the trial.  Yet all the while I was being vilified by Dr. Shafer, he was protecting Dr. Robert Markman, a doctor who had used Propofol 500 times or more over five years for general anesthesia for his daughter for external gentilia pain.  And I was using Propofol for about sixty days for just (INAUDIBLE).  He defended that doctor as if there was nothing wrong with him.

Contrary to Murray’s expectations this news makes me jubilant. I’ve always been of an opinion that under certain circumstances propofol can be administered outside the hospital setting without harming the patient and for a prolonged time too – if only it is done by a qualified physician and in the presence of all necessary monitoring equipment.

And the fact that this woman is still alive and happily survived through 500 times of propofol administered to her for 5 years and Michael died after only 2 months in the hands of his criminally negligent doctor is the best proof that it isn’t propofol which is to blame.

It is the doctor who is.

Dr. Markman’s case was looked into by the Californian medical board only recently, in autum 2013. He is a retired anesthesiologist who used propofol at home for his daughter to block her nerve which was giving her extreme pain and didn’t allow to walk.

Dr. Markman administered 600 mg (60ml) by IV infusion every three days and kept medical records (1200 pages worth) of his treatment sessions and the treatments provided by other doctors for 17 years prior to that, all of which proved ineffective.

He was of course heavily reprimanded for using propofol outside the hospital setting, but in contrast to Murray his treatment room was fully equipped with monitoring equipment, propofol was administered by a pump, and considering these circumstances Dr. Shafer concluded that propofol was a reasonable last resort treatment for chronic pain and that Markman did not represent a danger to his daughter and neither did his treatments.

The board stated:

• “The evidence shows, without contradiction, that there is no evidence that Ms.Markman has, as of this time, suffered any ill effects from the treatment. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to deprive Ms. Markman of the only treatment that has consistently afforded her any meaningful pain relief in order to address valid concerns about where and how propofol is administered to her. These concerns can be satisfactorily addressed through appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements”

• “The safety of Ms. Markman will be protected if respondent is permitted to continue to treat Ms. Markman with propofol under appropriately controlled conditions and if respondent is also subject to other appropriate terms of probation, as set forth in the Order, below.”   

What an impressive conclusion.  So the 500 infusions of 600mg of propofol given to the patient every three days did not provide any ill effects and since this treatment was found to be the only one to alleviate the patient’s condition, propofol was even advised by the board to be continued!

Wow, I simply can’t believe it. This case is a great proof that if propofol had been given to MJ in the same quantity, at the same rate and with the same standard of care, there wouldn’t have been any ill effects either and he would have perfectly survived it.

Michael was right. He would have been safe if he had been properly monitored, and if it hadn’t been for Murray the events would have taken a totally different turn.

DISGUSTING SCENE

LEMON: And you talk about that again, in Dr. Conrad Murray –

MURRAY: Absolutely.  All the details are sure.

LEMON: OK, so let’s talk about Michael since we have you here. I want to hear about this person you call your friend.  You say you knew him better than anyone towards the end of his life – than anyone, correct?

MURRAY: Yes.

LEMON: Did he share secrets with you?

MURRAY: Of course.  The most hidden treasure trove of his life is with me.  But have I protected Michael up until now.

LEMON: Up until now?

MURRAY: Of course.  Of course.  I’ve said nothing that has been inflammatory about my friend.  I protected Michael.  You see, when I had – the officials, and they pointed to Michael, the guy who could not pay me for months after taking care of him, and it’s sad that he could not pay for the Popsicle his daughters were using, the toilet paper that they were using to wipe their private areas, that he was penniless, I was shocked.  It was that time when Michael came to me trembling and trying to get me away from the AEG official who was Randy Phillips.

I was shocked.  I should have just picked my bottles up and leave had I been looking for money.  But there wasn’t money.  It was about the love of Michael.

I have suffered a lot.  There is no doubt about it.  But I don’t hate Michael.  Michael did not do me wrong.  He did not want this to happen to me.  Whatever happened to Michael when I was not there is probably his own misjudgment.  And I believe that that clearly happened because he was illogical, he was irrational, and he was in the withdrawal state from Demerol that Dr.Klein was feeding him.

LEMON: You said that he gave himself the drugs. You believe he gave himself the final dose?

MURRAY: The premises cannot be breached. It was not breached. There was no one else in the house, in the upper chambers but Michael and myself.  I was away from him.  The phone records shows that.

LEMON: But again I ask, should you have been with him?

MURRAY: No.  That’s a good question.  Because I gave Michael Jackson 25 milligrams of Propofol over three to five minutes.  All of the doctors, seven doctors in the test trial, assured there could be no Propofol effects after 10, maximum 15 minutes by Dr. Rogers, which is what I told police.  If I give Michael Jackson between 10:40 and 10:50, 25 milligrams of Propofol, the effect of the drug would be gone by 11:00.

LEMON: OK.

MURRAY: If I monitor him, (INAUDIBLE) by 11:20 –

LEMON: You believe, according to medical standards, that you were reasonable with that.

MURRAY: Absolutely.

Just a moment please. What’s that I wonder?

• “It was that time when Michael came to me trembling and trying to get me away from the AEG official who was Randy Phillips”.

“That time” must have been June 16^th when Randy Phillips threatened that Michael would lose everything, even his kids. The next days Michael looked very frightened but stoic using Karen Faye’s expression. She learned of that scene on June 18^th when Kenny Ortega was enraged that Michael came to a rehearsal very late and told her of their decision to play tough love on him every since.

And now we find that Michael was trembling all over after those threats and even tried to get Murray away from Randy Phillips.

Now look here. To be able to get Murray away from Phillips, Murray must have been very close to him in the first place.  And Murray’s slip of the tongue reveals that this was indeed so and Michael knew about it. No wonder he didn’t trust Murray and was looking for another doctor. So he did realize that Murray was working for AEG and not him…

LEMON: So you said you haven’t shared any secrets of Michael’s until now.  Do you plan to?  Is there something you want to tell us?

MURRAY: I would not share with you any hidden secrets of Michael.  Not at this time.  We don’t have that in summary.

LEMON: But how long you going to be silent?

MURRAY: How long am I going to be silent?  As long as I wish to.  I really –

LEMON: One day will you tell?

MURRAY: I can’t answer the question, to be totally honest.  And I don’t know.  I still protect Michael.

What a disgusting scene. The media represented by Don Lemon is bargaining with doctor Conrad Murray to open a certain “treasure trove of secrets” his patient could or could not confide in him (veracity of information is not the point here), and all this bargaining is done in the open, in everyone’s view, with someone who is supposed to be a doctor who by the very definition of his profession is obliged to preserve his patient’s privacy.

The Seller is advertising the goods (“The most hidden treasure trove of his life is with me”).

The Buyer is impatient and dying to know when the secret will be available (“You haven’t shared any secrets of Michael’s until now.  Do you plan to? How long you going to be silent? One day will you tell?).

“How long am I going to be silent? As long as I wish to”

However the Seller is bargaining and with a defiant expression on his face says that he will keep silent “as long as he wishes to” thus making it clear that he is not going to sell it cheap and will wait for the highest price.

And all that is said by a doctor?

And after that Murray wants the Superior Court to restore him in the medical profession?

We should send them this CNN transcript as the final argument that it is simply out of the question.

Now let us be practical about what we’ve just seen here.

Considering Murray’s personality there is little hope that the sale and purchase deal can be avoided, and it is then that we can expect Conrad Murray to tell some unspeakable lie about Jackson. And I can even guess what kind of a lie it will be.

The subject is a very well-known one. What else can it be besides “boys”? Especially considering the fact that Wade Robson was seeking contact with Murray and wanted to cooperate with him in his lawsuit? So the story this despicable person is planning to tell us will be something along the lines of the alleged dark secret allegedly revealed to him when Michael was allegedly under sedation.

Let us brace ourselves  for the prospect and remember that Murray is a monstrous liar.

And also remember that his word of lie will be directly contested by Michael Jackson’s word of truth – his testimony which was obtained by this scumbag of a doctor in a highly fraudulent way. And was given to him by Michael in exactly the same half-conscious state which Murray is now evidently planning to describe.

Given that Michael didn’t know that he was being recorded and couldn’t control his thoughts it can be regarded as his truest testimony and on the Bible too.

I’m naturally talking about the recording made by Murray when Michael was already half asleep and could hardly move his tongue. And where Michael said that God wanted him to take care of children and that kids were angels, and that it hurt him very much to see their pain, and that he dreamt of being able to heal them in a hospital of his own – from their ills and their depression. And where he revealed that his songs “Lost children”, “Heal the world” and others sprang from his real pain because this is what really hurt him since his own lost childhood.

He also revealed his sadness at having no more hope in these people due to their psychological degradation and that it was possibly only the next generation that would heal the planet from its ills.

For psychological degradation I address you to the media and Dr. Conrad Murray as a vivid example of it, and for Michael Jackson’s deepest secrets I address you to his dreams of healing children and the world, which were so inherent to his soul that he spoke of them in the moments of his greatest possible candor.

“MY MONUMENTAL GRIEF”

The remaining part of Murray’s interview is a cheap and sentimental show intended for complete imbeciles.

In this part you will learn of Murray’s monumental grief for Michael and his children, and that Murray was Michael’s only family, and that he was the only one to ever hug Michael’s children, and that Janet Jackson hugging the tearful Paris on stage was actually shutting her up this way, and that the poor criminal doctor wants to serve humanity now.

Don Lemon is playing up to Murray in their sentimental duet:

LEMON: What is your life like now?  Everywhere you go, today you went somewhere, and I saw a picture of you, and they had a picture of you drinking, getting milk, and they said oh, that’s what Michael Jackson called Propofol, milk.  And that must be some sort of, you know, there is a message that you’re sending.

MURRAY: Tabloids will twist anything. You know, milk.  They have called Michael all kinds of names.  I have  not.  My life is certainly a struggle.  I’m doing the best I can to put it back on track –

LEMON: You get depressed?

MURRAY: Me?  No.

LEMON: How do you take care of yourself?

MURRAY: Family and friends, the goodness of my family and friends.

LEMON: The kindness of family and friends.

MURRAY: Kindness, yes. Exactly.

LEMON: So you have no job. I know you’re working for the Trinidad Medical-

MURRAY: I am not working for Trinidad medical government.  I have volunteered to bring cardiac surgery for the pediatric children more available.  I have helped with their program, which took about seven weeks.

LEMON: So you have no income?

MURRAY: None.

LEMON: None at all?

MURRAY: None.

LEMON: So I have to ask you this.  Michael Jackson’s children.

MURRAY: Yes.

LEMON: Some of them are doing okay.  Some of them are suffering horribly.  His girl tried to commit suicide according to reports.  What do you say?  They were there that night or that afternoon watching their father, – if not dying, already dead.

MURRAY: Yes.

LEMON: What do you say to them?

MURRAY: Oh, my gosh.  The loss is monumental.  I grieve for Michael every day.  And I grieve for those children.  I was the only person that Michael brought to his attention of all his families and friends who were still hugging his children.  They would come into my arms every day.  That warms his heart.  His father had never done that. His mother and sisters were never embracing the children.

I was at the hospital the day that Michael passed away.  And they did not put an arm around the children.  The only time I saw an arm around Paris is when she cried on stage, and I saw her aunt place her (INAUDIBLE) hands over her mouth (ph).  Was she trying to shut her up or was she really trying to comfort her?  I don’t know.

But I love those children.  And you know what?  Maybe there will be a day when they would like to speak with me.  And I am quite open.  I have nothing to hide.

LEMON: Do you have anything to say to his family, to his mother?

MURRAY: Michael loved his mother of the only other relatives that he had.  Prior to Michael’s death, he announced to me he had four family members besides himself – Paris, Michael, and Prince Michael, Blanket and Dr.  Conrad.  That was his family.  Everyone else was totally absolved from his life.

He used his mother only because she may be the only chance of maybe having some way to pacify things between the differences in the family.  But not – but he did not have a relationship with any members.

So Murray claims that Michael used his mother to pacify things within the family and makes it look like this was only reason why he associated with her? Of all Murray’s crazy ideas this one sounds to me the craziest and most insulting of all.

And this picture shows the moment when Paris rushed to Janet Jackson and Janet hugged her during the memorial service which Conrad Murray is describing in a unique and exceptional manner of his own, suspecting Janet of “shutting the girl up” – while all Janet is doing is giving Paris a hug of genuine love and protection.

At the memorial service Janet gives Paris a hug of genuine love and protection

Is there anyone here besides Murray who also thinks that Janet was shutting her up?

Well yes, it may look like it, but only if you see this picture for the first time, haven’t witnessed the scene with your own eyes and don’t know the context of it …. which incidentally gives us an interesting insight into the way things can be taken out of context and interpreted by Conrad Murray and presented by him in a totally twisted way.

It is indeed an interesting example, so let us make a mental note of it as the rest of his stories are similarly false, crooked and twisted.

The more Murray speaks the more he reveals a pathological side to him typical of all sociopaths – their super ego, callousness, inability to have real sympathy for other people and a cynical disbelief that others may have real feelings. They also try to exhibit sweet emotions – care, love and concern for others, but inside there are none. All of it is simulated, and hence a huge discrepancy between what Murray says and does, and his ability to change within seconds from a declaration of sweetest love to a severe hatred raging inside him and shown each time people aren’t fooled by his tricks.

The interview is finally drawing to its end:

LEMON: And yet you’re the only one people hold responsible for his death, and you went to prison.

MURRAY: You know, I have been hurt.  There is no doubt about it.  But I carry no anger.  I would not allow them to do that to me.  I would like to hopefully one day use my testimony so that it can prevent others who have undergone injustice; innocent men go to prison all the time.  Maybe they should wear one of the shoes.

Now let me say something about the fans, for example.  There are all kinds of fans.  There are those who are diehards and have their reasons, and there are many who have.  I am Michael’s fan.

LEMON: Right.

MURRAY: But regardless –

LEMON: Okay. Do you think you deserve a second chance?  Anew beginning?  You would like to practice medicine again.

MURRAY: Absolutely.

LEMON: Sometime second chances, though, are new beginnings.  You can’t go back and do what you did before.  Maybe you’ll have to do something else.

MURRAY: I will serve humanity.

LEMON: Thank you, Dr. Conrad Murray.  Appreciate you.  Best of luck.

MURRAY: You’re welcome.

END.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/26/cnn-exclusive-conrad-murray-sets-the-record-straight/

Conrad Murray is going to serve humanity now? Oh Lord, please save us from the danger of it.

ONE STEP AHEAD 

Some people may think that this talk about Murray is untimely – and will be utterly wrong in thinking so.

The reason to talk about Murray now is his obvious plan to tell some horrendous lie about Michael and the media’s readiness to play up to him.

This plan was convincingly demonstrated by Don Lemon’s interview where he swept under the carpet every piece of unwelcome truth about Murray and gave full reign to his lies. The goal of this whitewashing is an attempt to turn Murray into someone presentable and convince the public that he can be trusted.

Why does the media want it? Because this so-called doctor is in an exceptional position of telling any lie about Jackson his crooked mind is capable of inventing and no one will be really able to check it up. Don Lemon’s insistent questions do not leave a doubt that they are looking forward to it as it will fit someone’s agenda and give the media something to talk about till the end of times.

However the plan is facing a problem – Murray has proven himself an exceptional liar and to be able to sell some dirt about Jackson the first thing they need to do is make Murray believable.

This is why not a single Murray’s word was challenged in this interview and not a single of his multiple lies was refuted. Not a single inconvenient question was asked and all we saw was a sweet flirting with this personality.

The despicable Murray also knows where the most money is, so the media and Murray’s interests fully coincide here and all that remains to be done now is settling the price of the deal.

Given that Murray also suddenly engaged himself in an extraordinary video activity, all this is a sure sign that we are already on the verge of this campaign.

So those who are ready to work for the truth about Michael Jackson are requested to please walk just one step ahead of it and tell everyone what Conrad Murray really is.

And he is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR with a CRIMINAL SIDE to him who is in DIRE STRAITS now and suffering from an INSATIABLE THIRST FOR MONEY too.

And if we show people the extremes Murray is ready to go to in his lies and slander of Michael Jackson, there is a slight chance that we will ruin the scams of those who count on making a huge profit out of a new character assassination of an innocent man.

He would have been 56 years old today. You can imagine, what would Michael have been doing for his birthday? We’ll never know, but we know that he would have been here with his children, Prince, Paris and Blanket. They would have been celebrating, happily, with their father.

But just because Michael is gone, it’s never meant the celebrations for this day need stop. Every year without fail, fans have done so much and never forgotten to pay tribute to him on two separate occasions… The day of his death and the day of his birth. Flowers are laid down, songs are played and memories flourish, whatever they may be.

I think and I imagine, what would Michael love for his birthday? He’s not here to receive this gift, but I like to think he watches and knows what gift we can give to him. 365 days are in a year, and each one of those days, even in his darkest times of despair, he thought of the welfare of others.

His wish was for us to stop and think a little for those who suffer and have nothing – no families, no friends, no homes, not even clothes. Adults and especially children, who have little to no hope in their lives. We have rainforests torn down, oceans polluted and cities bombed to the ground. Everyday of every hour of every minute, somebody suffers. Homes are destroyed and lives are taken. From the streets you walk, to the land around you and far beyond the seas, there are people suffering.

Can we help improve conditions? Of course we can. There’s no good in sitting and hoping somebody else fixes the problem for us, because it’ll forever remain a constant thing.

Like Michael said, he couldn’t heal the world,  but he could help. Can we heal the world?

Soldier No.9

My honest answer?  I’m not sure. I don’t know if the world can be healed, especially with everything that’s going on. Conflicts seem to be everywhere these days over such petty reasons. Innocent people suffer and die over what, exactly?

Can anybody give me a good answer why there are wars raging and innocent adults and children must constantly get caught in the crossfire? Have we learnt NOTHING since 1914, the time of the first World War? No, obviously, we haven’t.

Humanity is still that same destructive force as it was back then and it’ll never cease within us, unfortunately and tragically.  Through this deadliest and most evil trait we have, everyday on the news we’re seeing tears of innocent victims. From the oldest citizen, to the youngest child, we see them crying in pain and fleeing in terror from our weapons firing over and at them. There are no heroes or villains in this, only victims. I hope at the end of the day, those who caused the deaths of the innocent, can pat themselves on the back for a job well done…a job that their children and grandchildren or great grandchildren will only be fighting all over again in the next several years.

War and conflict benefits nobody or nothing. It causes pain and death. Why can’t we just leave the world alone and allow it a chance to heal? The hunger for power creates conflict and that fact will never change. So, because of that, broken pieces will be forever picked up by those whose lives have been shattered. Families lose their homes, children lose their parents and parents lose their children.

NOTHING can excuse what we’re doing to the world and those who have to live in it.

And this brings me to my idea. A present for Michael. In whatever way you think can do it, whatever way you’re capable, let’s do something that honours what he stood for – Helping others.

If you can think of anybody that needs help in anyway on August 29th, then you do it. I don’t want to come of to anybody as sounding preachy and saying this is what you should be doing, I’m not going to convince or guilt trip anybody. But what I’ve learned and discovered is, we are capable of making a difference to the world. Michael had no hope left, as he said. When you have no hope, you can easily throw in the towel and wash your hands of everything. He had no hope left in us, and he spent so much of his life believing in the best of us to carry out his dream, and that was to help make the world a better place. But who can blame him and so many of us who have no hope left, through not even a quarter of what I described above?

Who do we have to look up to? Leaders of Countries killing one another’s home and people? Celebrities more interested in money, partying, sex and drugs, propelled by a soul corrupting, media, money making machine and influencing impressionable children? Our children are the one last strand of hope that Michael had left to hold onto. He believed, right up until he passed, that our children would grow up to right the wrongs that we’re causing. Can our children stop the wars and senseless killings, fan the flames spreading across our jungles and forests and plug the waste polluting our seas? Maybe, they can. But we’ll never know unless we stop and think about what they’re being brought up around. What can we do to help them, help make this world better?  Have a think about it. Because something, no matter how big or small, helps make a difference.

We CAN help and make a difference.

I have 2 girls to look after in my relationship. I don’t want them to grow up in a world where we do nothing and yet, we actually CAN. I don’t want those girls influenced by the wrong things that plague us, all thanks to a bunch of celebrities who possess a lack of morals and a system that pushes them in front of our children’s eyes and world leaders who have no clue how to settle things other than with bloodshed. I don’t intend to sit back and do nothing.

We’re not Michael Jackson, though. We don’t have his power,  money or influence to create a big enough pedestal so our voices can be heard…even though Michael’s voice and message was heavily distorted by corrupt forces, who I assume work for the Devil.

But we must never forget his true voice and purest message – help our world and our children and we CAN possess that spirit, too.

Even just for his birthday, one day. Is that too much?

So, if you can, do something to help somebody out there. Whether it’s with your helping hand, or with a credit card. Do anything you can to help make a tiny difference in some poor soul’s life. If you have children, if you can, spend as much time of the day you have with them. Treat them to a little something and put them on that right path. Let somebody, anybody, whether it’s a stranger or a friend or a family member, let them know you love them. Because the world is seriously lacking this at the moment.

That’s not just a gift for Michael, it’s a gift for you and anybody blessed enough to receive it. That’s what he wanted from us. So, if you believe in Michael’s dream, and I’m sure you do, then do this for him. Whether you can help somebody or not on August 29th, just let someone know you’re there and you care about them. If we can do this for one day, then that’s great. But, if we can maintain it for the best part of 365 days, like Michael did, then maybe there is hope for us? Baby steps, I know. But we can get there if we truly want to. We CAN make a change.

Let his dream and wishes for us, our children and our planet, be our mission to achieve, since he no longer can.

Our gift for you, Michael, will be what you tried to give us all your life – Love and a better world.

So, happy Birthday, Michael Jackson and thank you for the lessons you taught us through your words of wisdom and your songs that moved us in so many ways.

Thank you for the heart and spirit you inspired so many of us with. We love you more and always will.

Just a quick heads up guys. This can be considered good news.

Michael Jackson’s lawyers have scored a victory in their legal battle with Australia’s Wade Robson.

Australian choreographer Wade Robson has lost his bid to grill representatives of Michael Jackson’s estate about graphic sexual acts he alleged the late King of Pop performed on him as a child.

“I think the types of questions we are are asking are appropriate,” Robson’s lawyer Maryann Marzano told Los Angeles Superior Court judge Mitchell Beckloff during Thursday’s hearing.

Marzano wanted to probe the heads of Jackson’s estate with questions ranging from whether Jackson put his hands inside Robson’s underpants to whether Jackson committed various sexual acts on Robson.

Jackson lawyer Jonathan Steinsapir said his clients have already denied anything sexual took place between Jackson and Robson.

“Now they want us to deny Michael Jackson put his hand on Wade Robson’s penis,” Steinsapir told judge Beckloff.

“We have denied that.”

At the end of the hearing, Marzano agreed to withdraw 11 of the questions, but Robson’s lawyers will be allowed to probe Jackson executives about other matters.

Robson, who was a five-year-old dance prodigy in Brisbane when he first met Jackson, had been one of the pop star’s biggest supporters.

Robson testified under oath at Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial involving another boy in Santa Barbara that Jackson never abused him.

Robson was a key reason for Jackson’s acquittal.

However, last year Robson did an about-face and claimed Jackson was a sexual predator who brainwashed him.

Jackson died in 2009 and Robson now wants a slice of the entertainer’s estate that’s estimated to be worth around $US1.5 billion ($A1.6 billion).

Robson said it wasn’t until after Jackson’s death and the birth of his own son that he was psychologically and emotionally able to understand that Jackson had sexually abused him.

Robson filed a late claim in the Los Angeles court against the dead singer’s estate.

Robson became one of the world’s top dance choreographers, winning an Emmy Award for his work on US TV and was hired by acts including Britney Spears and NSYNC.

Robson’s lawyers say Robson was so traumatised by Jackson molesting him he could no longer dance, sing or write songs

The matter was adjourned to December 16.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/11/07/aust-wade-robson-suffers-la-court-setback

And again I wonder…just how did Wade become so traumatised if he already knew about being brainwashed for years, but only recovered them memories and realisations in therapy?

Wait, what was his story again?

Doesn’t matter – if it sounds like crap, smells like crap and looks like crap, it’s usually false allegations.

Dear readers, you didn’t read as much as usual from us on this blog this year, and we want to apologize for it. But before the year ends I would like to find a few words about what happened during the year, what kind of résumé could be drawn from all the events and which impact they have on us, at least from my point of view and also in the name of Helena, who hopefully will be able to come back to us and continue her valuable work.

The world in turmoil

Ruins of a residential area in Beit Hanoun/Northern Gaza, August 2014; Photo: B’Tselem/Wikipedia

When we look at the situation the world is in, we realize that this was a terrible year in many parts of the planet. We’ve had and still have new wars, new crises and conflicts, much hate and intolerance and inhumanity spread in many countries.

We had another war in Gaza between Israel and the Hamas in which more than 2,200 people were killed within 7 weeks, the vast majority of them Palestinians, and probably more than 500 of them children.

There is the horrible war the ISIS is waging on innocent people, controlling territories in Iraq and Syria, even killing women and children without the slightest qualm, based on a religion they claim to be Islamic, but which is a completely inhuman ideology. – However, it should not be forgotten that this situation was created to a large extent by a war that was brought to Iraq from the West – an unjustified war based on lies following 9/11 that led in its consequence to an outbreak of Islamic extremism in this area.
The Middle East and parts of Africa are burning; the poor people in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries cannot find a moment of peace.

Protests in Ferguson, USA, against police violence – African-Americans still have to fight for equal rights; photo: AFP

There are re-inflamed racial tensions in the United States resulting from several killings of young black men by white police officers who were never indicted.

There are millions of refugees fleeing from their precarious situations all over the world,  immigration problems burden many countries and xenophobia and racism is increasing.

There is a completely underestimated war going on in Eastern Europe between Ukraine and rebels in Eastern Ukraine, who are very obviously supported by Russian troops and military equipment. It was even admitted by a Russian military leader that he was sent to Ukraine to start the war. According to an UNHCR estimation more than 1 million people in Eastern Ukraine had to leave their homes, the number of people killed is not clear, but must be above 2,000 meanwhile, including the noninvolved passengers of a Malaysian Airlines flight.  It led to a new crisis between the West and the East and already induced a new cold war. Our own blog is affected by this crisis because Helena was and still is occupied with a disastrous development in her country and even in danger to get disconnected from us.

Crash site of flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, July 2014 – 298 innocent people were shot down, 80 of them children; photo: Reuters

There are many more political and economic problems in the world as well as many threatening natural disasters due to climate change and global warming, which mankind is not able or willing to turn around. Let’s not forget the Ebola crisis with more than 6,000 victims so far that caused fear and insecurity not only in Africa.
We have many fundamentalist, ultranational, racist, extreme groups who try to manipulate and force dissenters or just regular people to live according to their views, or who feel they have the right to oppress others. We have criminal corrupt systems and state violence like in Mexico where a long series of murders recently peaked in the sudden disappearance of 43 students who seem to be killed by drug gangs in cooperation with police.

To me it sometimes seems that in many places our progress in civilization, democracy, tolerance, empathy and understanding is getting lost and we are straight on our way back to the Middle Ages. The year 2014 definitely brought us a big step backwards.

MJ legacy under fire

In addition, in the MJ world we learned this year that nothing can stop some people from continuing to drag a good soul through the mud even after his death.

We had the questionable, untruthful autopsy program aired in the first days of January in Great Britain and repeatedly shown since on several TV channels.
We saw the despicable actions of Conrad Murray, like his interview with CNN on the fifth anniversary of Michael’s death.

The Robson and Safechuck cases are still pending. We have seen several court documents which show that the accusers go to extremes to manifest their intentions, even to the point of absurdity. Some allegations are so implausible that I wonder who they expect to believe them. Do they really want to make us believe that the violent sexual acts they describe (like anal rape) would not be recognized by a young boy as abuse, as a crime – a crime that inevitably leads to immediate physical and psychological injuries at this age? Injuries that a mother had to have noticed. A crime that is so painful and humiliating for a child that it would never be able to take it as an act of love and would avoid any further situation of being alone with this guy again, let alone taking his own family later to this guy’s house for a barbecue. And don’t forget, Robson denied that it is repressed memory, he said he didn’t forget it, but just didn’t perceive it as abuse because he was brainwashed.
This sounds so ridiculous that I doubt the common sense of any judge in the US if this case goes forward.

Stacy Brown – “It’s slander, with the words you use you’re a parasite in black and white, do anything for news…” (MJ, Tabloid Junkie)

We also had new defaming articles written by Stacy Brown who uses any chance to spread lies about Michael Jackson and the Jackson family and who seems to have pleasure in wallowing in his own dirt he creates about people he obviously is obsessed with. His style and his attitude so blatantly show that his intention is not to inform, but to slander, that he is no person of integrity and should not write in any newspaper. Tabloid style of the worst kind!

The same obsession we saw again with Diane Dimond who used Tom Sneddon’s death to remind everybody of her friendship (and cooperation) with the DA, whom she called on her FB site “a man of integrity”, claiming Sneddon “had the courage to do the right thing even though law enforcement knew for years about Mr. Jackson and his misbehavior with young boys.” With this she publicly stated the allegations again as fact, although Jackson was acquitted of all charges. This is nothing else but character assassination. She also calls it “a testament to the facts” that “five young men have now come forward to claim they were molested at the hands of Michael Jackson when they were young boys. Five. Five. I’m betting there are more.”
(Oh my God, what an overwhelming number compared to real child molesters – and not fictional ones like MJ.)

Diane Dimond – her obsession: “Five. Five. I’m betting there are more.”

This way she construes her own reality which doesn’t include that three of these five young men were refuted in court long ago (Jordan Chandler, who never wanted to be a witness and refused to present any accusations to the court; Gavin Arvizo, who was caught in lies in court and showed himself to be much more angry at Michael for avoiding him than about any “molestation”; and Jason Francia, who only talked about “tickling” and was laughed out of the courtroom because he couldn’t be taken seriously).
And the other two (new) accusers – Robson and Safechuck – denied molestation for years and now changed their mind after the “molester” is dead and left an Estate worth billions of dollars behind. They have not yet proven their case (and will not be able to), and still Dimond calls their accusations “fact”. So she gives them the benefit of the doubt she never gave to Michael Jackson? This makes her a highly immoral, biased person who doesn’t care for civil and human rights, at least not in the case of Michael Jackson.
She also calls MJ’s supporters “childish and ill-informed”, only to distract from her own twisted reality and disinformation.
This shows again how tabloid journalists try to manipulate public opinion and use their position for personal agendas.
For this reason, I now want to remind everybody that Diane Dimond clearly has no interest to pursue real pedophiles (where is her investigation of Rodney Allen or her decrial of all the other convicted or suspected pedophiles?) and even cooperated with a suspected pedophile – Victor Gutierrez – , who has a connection to NAMBLA and of whom she doesn’t want to hear today (if you mention him as her collaborator you are blocked). This again makes her a highly immoral person.
You can find a lot of information about all of this on this blog.

To remind you, please also see this link about the connection between Sneddon, Dimond, Gutierrez and Allen.

We also saw how the usual haters tried to strengthen their forces to support Robson and Safechuck and to destroy Jackson’s legacy and undermine the success of the MJ Estate.
I want to recommend again Raven’s series of posts on the Allforlove Blog on the actions of these haters and how all of them are connected: Part 1, part 2, part 3.

MJ legacy on the advance

But I don’t want to dwell on all this negativity, instead I wish to point to some positive events and developments which show us that MJ’s legacy is not really in danger on a worldwide basis.
The good thing is that all of this could not damage Michael Jackson’s posthumous success.
We had some positive events and publications about Michael this year and it turned out that all the mean efforts of his few haters didn’t influence the general public or find much attention in the mainstream media.

The Immortal World Tour of Cirque du Soleil was a major success. With 501 shows in 27 countries it became the 7th highest grossing tour of all time. It ended in August in the US.

In May we saw the release of “Xscape”. Whether you liked the album or not, it was quite a success and became number 1 in 52 countries.
Of course, like with all posthumous releases of MJ, the fan base was divided about it, and other controversies followed, like the Hologram controversy and the sale of Neverland controversy.
But this was primarily within the fan base, the general public saw Michael Jackson mostly as number 1 of the top earning dead celebrities (according to Forbes) with one of the most successful Estates.

This year also brought us a couple of positive new books about Michael that again divided the fan base, but I think the fans should more often see such books from the public’s point of view. In my opinion all of them contributed to a better understanding of Michael and his life. Even if we have to assume that they are mainly read by fans, there is a possibility that more people learn more about MJ and may change their mind.
“Michael Jackson Inc.” by Zack O’Malley contributed to the fact that MJ was a savvy and farsighted businessman who was in charge of his work, a musical genius who reached his success and wealth by talent, cleverness, endurance, discipline and hard work for decades.
“Remember the Time” by B. Whitfield and J. Beard presented Michael as a human being, a great father and a man interested in women. It contributed to the fact that the trial of 2005 brought him into a terrible situation with all its consequences of financial, social and psychological troubles. From this book we can see how Michael tried to keep his empire together to make a new start, but lost overview and influence on his own assets as a result of this trial and ended in the hands of a ruthless company like AEG who used this situation for themselves.
In addition, the co-author of the book, Tanner Colby, wrote a great article here.
“Michael Jackson’s Dangerous” by Dr. Susan Fast contributed to the fact that MJ was an intelligent and “incredibly versatile” artist who had a lot to say, but was very misunderstood and had to fight against prejudice and a white-dominated entertainment industry that undervalued his genius and at the same time saw him as a threat.
“Otherness and Power: Michael Jackson and His Media Critics” by Susan Woodward contributed to the fact that Michael was regarded too powerful by his critics and so was portrayed as a threat to the world. Woodward describes how media critics reacted to the perceived power and otherness of MJ and what they are projecting onto him.
A quote from her recent conversation on “Dancing with the elephant”:

“[…] let me just note that none of the writers that I analyzed in my book were tabloid writers. It’s shocking that so much hatred was spewed at him from people who write as if they were offering good reporting and thoughtful analysis. And it is disappointing that so much of the public accepted lies and distortions as the truth.”

(The latter two books I have not yet read, but read reviews on them.)

In October, Thriller Live in London had its 2000th performance and was extended to September 2015.

Michael Jackson ONE, which premiered in Las Vegas on June 29, 2013, became “the latest piece of a postmortem empire”, as Zack O’Malley called it. A Las Vegas show like that can become a lucrative permanent source of income for the Estate for years and provide Michael’s children a secure future.

I know there are different opinions about all of these Estate efforts among Michael’s supporters and some steps might be in fact disputable, but it is a clear fact that the efforts of Michael’s detractors since his death could not really damage his legacy and the financial success of his Estate, which is probably their intention. They try hard to ruin the Estate, and the Robson/Safechuck case is a real challenge for the Estate, so I support the petition to hire Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu in case it goes forward, but what is obvious is that the general public is not following these cases much. On the contrary, we can read many comments that show that the public is tired of these accusations, which are always only allegations and never proven and illogical at that. Simply allegations of the same kind as those of several women who claimed he had fathered their children. People now respect Michael more than 10 years ago and rather want to have good memories of him than hear all this new garbage. They are no longer interested in it.
Michael is celebrated and honored in school events, sports events, music events, dance events, casting shows, symposia, in university studies, cultural studies, academic publications. As we can see from many YT videos, he still inspires kids and young people, and even CEOs like this one.

Just have a look here on Joe Vogel’s list of Michael Jackson studies.

So there is one thing at least that struck me as a positive outcome of this year: I very strongly could ascertain for myself that Michael Jackson’s legacy will survive all the malicious attempts of his haters to damage it. I always feared it could take decades to be sure of it, but you already can see it now. It became clear that the group of haters is small, they may be well-organized and use the effective methods of propaganda, but they don’t reach the influence they wish to have. They should learn the lesson that hate does not pay off.

This does not mean that we can stop our vindication work and our efforts to inform and tell the truth. We hope to be able to continue writing on this blog whenever it is necessary to respond to lies, half-truths, vilifications and misrepresentations about Michael.

Hope

What can we learn otherwise from this year?
The condition of the world shows us that it is more than ever in need of the messages of an artist and human being like Michael Jackson. This means, of extraordinary people – visionaries – who are able to approach the world’s problems and conflicts and misunderstandings with a completely different attitude than it is usually the case in politics, economics and society. With an attitude that is composed of honesty, sincerity, empathy, love and understanding, but also courage to speak the truth.

Michael performing his “Earth Song” live in concert

It seems people begin to realize Michael’s significance.
During the recent protests in the US, after Grand Juries declined to indict white police officers for killing unarmed black men, we could see how people began to remember Michael’s messages. Several articles appeared that talked about Michael Jackson’s songs and their relevance to the current situation.

In an article published in the Baltimore Sun, in which he laments the inactivity of black celebrities, D. B. Anderson wrote:

“Michael Jackson was never afraid to put himself out there for the truth as he saw it. We could always count on Jackson to be the global leader of the band, to give voice to everything we were feeling. His adult catalog is a trove of social activism. Starvation. AIDS. War. Gang violence. Race relations. The environment. It was Jackson who put on concerts for war-torn Sarajevo. It was Jackson who put together a group charity song and concert after 9/11. It was Jackson who used every ounce of his global celebrity to make a difference. He was there.
What happened to Jackson for his politics was so much worse than losing sales. For in speaking truth to power, Jackson made himself a target, and he took a pounding. The worst shots at him were taken by a white district attorney in California who pursued him relentlessly for 12 years and charged him with heinous crimes that were utterly disproved at trial.
No one ever seems to connect the dots: A very vocal, very influential, very wealthy black man was taken down by a white prosecutor on trumped-up charges.”

Protesters performing MJ’s “They Don’t Care About US” in Berkeley, CA, December 2014; source: Greta Kaul

It is amazing that this was allowed to be published in a major US newspaper.

In an article on “Parents United for Public Education” a mother talks about her 9 year old son’s favorite song “They don’t care about us” and the meaning of its lyrics today and says:

“My son will never look at ‘Michael Jackson: The Experience’ the same again. He will be reminded every time he hears the song about our conversation in the kitchen. He will be reminded of his fear of the “they.” He will be reminded of the images that he continues to see play on the television screen. He will come to understand that the lyrics were written to be heard not just danced to.”

In his article “What needs to happen after Eric Garner” Mike Muse analyses the situation on the basis of MJ’s “Black or White”.

D.B. Anderson closes his article in the Baltimore Sun with the words:

“On Twitter, #TheyDontCareAboutUs is a hashtag. In Ferguson, they blasted the Michael Jackson song through car windows. In New York City and Berkeley last weekend, it was sung and performed by protesters. And In Baltimore, there was a magical moment when the Morgan State University choir answered protests with a rendition of Jackson’s ‘Heal The World.’
The price has already been paid, but the check was never cashed. Maybe we just need to finally listen to Michael Jackson.”

Yes, we finally should listen to Michael Jackson, not only in the US, but all over the world.

As most of the conflicts worldwide are based on lies and propaganda, we first need to evaluate the reality honestly, find out the truth and expose the lies. When the lies are exposed, most of the reasons for the conflicts are removed. People would realize that they were angry at their alleged adversaries for wrong reasons, and a mutual understanding could begin. By studying Michael’s life we already learned how the system of lies works, and the same happens in politics and conflicts between nations and religions.

I know we can’t change the whole world and we can’t change people who have no interest in this mutual understanding and just care about their own benefit. But we ourselves, who wish to make a difference, can make our contribution and do our part so that the world despite all the terror is still a world worth living in. We can do that in our own small environment and we can do it in the worldwide web with its great chances to make our voices heard.
We need to establish a balance to the actions of those who spread negativity and falsehood, and we shouldn’t stop. Michael is gone and other greats are gone who had visions for a better world, so we have to take over and become the visionaries inspired by them.

I now wish everybody a Merry Christmas and – despite all pessimistic prospects – a better year 2015. I wish it especially for our Helena who urgently needs our encouragement that better times will come back and human rights, truth and democracy will be re-established. Let’s simply visualize it, even if it might take years.
I also wish it for our African-American brothers and sisters in the US who are still defending their equal rights against white predominance. And of course I wish it for all nations, groups and religions that are oppressed and persecuted. So let’s pray for peace on earth particularly at this Christmas 2014.

Peace – Friede – paix – paz – світ – мир – שלום – سلام

“Don’t look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if it is not there…”

Confucius

This short post was first made as a reply to a reader’s comment, but since the subject is top important I decided to place it here as a point for a separate discussion.

The comment came from Judy and concerned Wade Robson (and Jimmy Safechuck) who decided to get some $1,62 billion from Michael Jackson’s Estate on the charges they suddenly thought of several years after Michael’s death:

 “I believe them when they went to court and testified that Michael did nothing to them. No matter what their reasoning is, Wade and Safechuck are, committing a crime, lies, fraud, defamation of character. They aren’t even credible.” 

Of course they are not.

Just  to clarify one point – as far as I remember Safechuck wasn’t summoned by the prosecution or the defense in 2005. In 1993 he was interviewed by the police same as all other children who were around Michael at the time and said that nothing inappropriate had ever taken place. As to Robson he was supposed to be summoned by the prosecution in 2005 but turned out to be a witness for the defense as he vehemently defended Michael and said that he had never been as much as touched by him.

So no matter what they claim now these people are not credible for a simple reason that they are contradicting their own prior testimony. And Wade Robson actually spoke in the defense of Michael twice and the second time he was a grown-up man and it was a testimony under oath.

If we assume now that both times he lied, it means that lying is an inherent feature of his character. And those who tell a lie at least once and so confidently too – like Robson did –  are able to lie again and again, and many times over.

For cases like that we have a very good English proverb: “If someone deceives you once, shame on him. If someone deceives you twice, shame on you”. So if we assume that we were deceived by Robson at least once, we should take extra care not to allow him to deceive us again.

Now Robson will probably tell us a heart-wrenching story about the way he was “molested”, and in horrible detail too. And he may even sound genuine when describing it – because, in the first place,  he has heard enough detail from the real victims he is associating with now on a site he specially created for the purpose and secondly, because Wade Robson could indeed be molested at some moment of his life.

This I don’t rule out. What if he was indeed molested, only by someone different? For example, by his father who later committed suicide? Or by his agent who took care of his career when he was already in the US? We remember the ways of some Hollywood producers who deal in young talents, don’t we?

But the problem is that a suit against the agent will bring no money, while a suit against Michael’s Estate will. And this is what makes  all the difference in the world for Robson. Especially since a suit against the Estate will also help him to take his revenge on its lawyers for their refusal to hire him for their MJ-related projects.

Can anyone guarantee to you that when telling his story Robson will not talk about the abuse suffered by him from another person? No one can guarantee you that. And if he lied once, he can lie again. And he will look quite genuine in his testimony too – because he will actually be describing his real experience. Only it won’t be about Jackson but will be about another person.

This is a method that helps people cheat on a lie detector. If they want to produce a negative emotion when asked about an innocent guy, all they need to do is focus on their real offender and answer about him and this will build up their emotions and create a corresponding physical reaction registered by the machine.

This is how they cheat on the machine. And this is how they cheat on human beings too (even to a greater degree).

But what allows us to think that Robson is now telling another of his lies and not the truth?

It is our own assumption that on two previous occasions he lied. The logic is very simple – if he lied once he will easily lie again, and the person who lied twice, and under so serious circumstances too, cannot be credible in principle.

Imagine a witness who falsely testified on two occasions and now wishes to give another testimony. Will this third testimony hold if the jury knows for sure that he previously lied twice? No, it won’t. Actually a witness like that will probably not be even summoned by the court for fear that he will discredit the whole case.

That is why I can’t even understand what the judge is thinking about and why he seems to be hesitating. If he believes Robson now it means that Robson lied then, and if Robson is a proven liar his suit should have been thrown out the moment it was filed.

However in contrast to Robson’s supporters I am sure that he did NOT lie then and that he is not so big a liar as they think him to be (what a paradox!). For all thirty years until recently he was telling the truth.

He was NOT molested. At least not by Michael Jackson.

Robson’s present supporters will naturally try to fool you by saying that they are ready to close their eyes on his previous testimonies and thirty years of support for Jackson because it is “typical” of child abuse victims not to tell on their offenders until they reach the age of 30 or more.

Not quite so, guys. It is typical of child abuse victims to keep silence about their offenders, never speak about their abuse with anyone, never touch on the subject and – naturally – never talk in the defense of their abusers.

Keeping silence when no one suspects the abuse  and you have to break through a wall, and defending a person when everyone suspects it and points at you as his ‘victim’, are totally different things.

In fact they are the exact opposites of each other.

Those who were abused in their childhood dream of a possibility to rid themselves of the haunting images of the abuse. The abuse is their dark secret lying on them like a gravestone. And the secrecy of it and the feeling of being so terribly different from others and having to forever keep it to themselves  is what makes it so much worse for them.

They want to take it off their chest and see their abuser answer for what he did. They want to see him weak, helpless and humiliated  – the way they felt during the time of his overwhelming power over them and their silent suffering many years after that.

And the criminal proceedings already taking place against their abuser  give them a fantastic chance to speak up and throw this burden off their shoulders. They jump at the chance as it gives them enormous relief after which they can start their life anew. And if the criminal trial is followed by a civil one, they can also get millions to somewhat compensate them for their sufferings.

However Robson wants us to believe that he not only refused to get the secret off his shoulders (when his alleged offender was already on trial), but he also took upon himself the extra burden of lying in favor of his abuser and going against the crowd which expected exactly the opposite of him? And that instead of justice for himself he decided to valiantly defend his alleged abuser in the face of the public, media and prosecution that was examining him really hard?

Besides all of it being extremely illogical and totally contrary to human character and nature of this type of abuse, could anyone also explain to me what for Robson would do it?

For the money that MJ could theoretically pay to him for speaking in his defense? But we have already made our calculations and agreed that he could have got much more money if he had spoken against Michael. This abstract pay-out could have been only minimal considering Michael’s then circumstances, while a civil trial that would have invariably taken place in case of a guilty verdict would have brought him millions as the whole MJ property would have gone on sale.

So whichever way you look at this story (including its craziest details) it still produces the impression of a highly artificial mental construct which has nothing to do with reality. Nothing fits in and the main character cannot even explain why his current version presents his own past actions in so a ridiculous way –  lacking any logic, reason and motive.

But if all of us agree that this story is just a theater of the absurd how much longer will people pretend that the story of Robson (and his assistant) has any subject for discussion at all? How long will they be looking for a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat is not there?

Isn’t it much more worthy to look into why Robson suddenly made his U-turn and why it so conveniently coincided with Katherine Jackson’s  civil suit against AEG  and a wave of new media disinformation about MJ? This is a much more interesting subject to investigate. At least over here the perspective is promising us all the necessary elements Robson’s story is lacking  – the logic, reason and motive for slandering Jackson.

Sometimes it is just enough to reread some court documents to stop looking into the behavioral intricacies of the ‘poor boy’ Wade Robson and see the simplicity of the case in all its brutal nakedness.

This refreshing change took place with me when I was looking for the $1,62 billion sum the ‘poor boy’ is demanding now and in the process happened to reread not only his present court documents but also the testimonies of the whole Robson family at the 2005 trial.

You cannot imagine what an eye-opening experience it was. Indeed, the present documents read best of all against the background of these testimonies, thus opening your eyes not only to the glaring falsity of Robson’s current story but also to his incredible ego, cynicism, ingratitude, jealousy, callousness, and his lust for money of course.

The three documents from the year 2005  are the testimonies of the 22-year old Wade Robson, his mother Joy Robson and his 25-year old sister Chantal Robson. The two documents from Robson today are his ‘Second Amended Complaint’ filed on February 19, 2014 and certain ‘Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission‘ filed on July 25, 2014.

Same as the first claim the amended one doesn’t elaborate on any “sexual acts” (as it is heavily redacted) but enumerates probably all paragraphs of the California Penal Code on various types of molestation, thus implying that the complaint covers the whole spectrum of them. The advantage of this paper is that it gives Robson’s story.

The “Special Interrogatories” introduce you to a broad range of subjects on which the Claimant wants information from the “Corporation” (MJJ Productions). Its 143 points range from identifying “all business entities in which Decedent had an ownership interest during the time period from approximately 1990 through 1997” to “all persons to whom the Corporation paid consideration to settle claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress by Decedent”. To put it in one word the Claimant’s interrogatories want everything.

The document a curious mind will be most interested in is “Requests for admission” which in its 93 points invites the Defendants to admit various things including the alleged ‘sexual acts’ of which the MJJ Productions and the Estate were evidently supposed to know.

Most of the requests for admission are insane, even the most innocent ones. Here is a sample of a request to admit that “the Decedent told Robson that he would become a film director”. So what?

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION No.17: “Admit that, during the time period from approximately 1990 through 1997, DECEDENT told Wade Robson that Wade Robson would become a film director”.

.

Naturally the “Requests for Admission” look like the most captivating part of the collection, but believe it or not, after comparing them with the testimony of three Robsons at the 2005 trial the document impressed me most not by the encyclopedia of alleged sex crimes enumerated there but by presenting all the good Michael did to the family as something sinister and vile.

This is what strikes you most after comparing the glorious stories all Robsons told about their friendship with Michael at the 2005 trial and the dry statements of Robson’s present claim where all the good Michael did to them is turned upside down and presented in the vilest manner possible.

For example, the list requests the admission that the “Responding party arranged for Wade Robson to dance in one or more of Decedent’s music videos”, applied for visas for the family when they came to settle in the US, helped Robson’s mother with her employment and ensured that payment be made to her though her temporary visa did not allow for it, released an album for Wade on the Michael Jackson’s record label and committed many more malicious acts.

This list of crimes against humanity reads best of all against the background of the family’s testimonies because it is only when comparing these two that you realize that it was the burning desire of the family to get all these malicious things Robson is now complaining about.

The enormity of his today’s lies and ingratitude is monumental and beyond any possible description. At least I lack the necessary words suitable for print in order to describe it.

Therefore I will simply make my own first list of Requests for Admission (13 points) and address it to Robson and his family and also to those of you who are still sitting on the fence and “don’t know what to think of it”, poor things.

To make it easier for everyone I will try to follow the pattern of the document submitted to the court by Robson’s attorneys. The only difference is that my points will be more detailed than the single-line requests from WR which are only mystifying the public by their total scarcity of detail.

Some of the requests will be made for information sake only as they are necessary for describing the scene of the crime (Robson’s crime, naturally).

Request for admission No.1

Admit that in his claim Robson defines the time of Michael Jackson’s invitation to spend a weekend at Neverland as February 1990. However in their 2005 testimonies the time of their first visit to Neverland mentioned by the family varies – Joy Robson (mother) speaks of January 1990 and Wade and Chantal Robson remember it as the year 1989.

Now admit that the difference of opinion over this starting point of the story, same as over several other matters in it, makes it clear that the three members of the family did not try to agree with each other about each other’s testimonies, and that their testimonies were spontaneous and they were not coached by Michael Jackson or anyone in who should say what.

Request for admission No. 2

Robson at age 5

Admit that Wade Robson and his mother got acquainted with Michael Jackson after the dance contest in 1987 in Australia as meeting MJ was the prize for winning the contest. Basically it was a meet-and-greet event only.

Michael enjoyed seeing Wade Robson in his “Bad” outfit and offered him to take part in his show the next day. The second time they met him was the day after the evening performance when Wade and his mother went to his hotel room and talked for a couple of hours about what Wade wanted to do.

After Michael left Australia they weren’t in contact with each other for two years. Wade Robson continued to dance with his troupe, Johnny Young Talent company in Australia, Brisbaine.

So admit that Michael Jackson was not trying to keep up his ties with the Robson family in any way at all.

In his 2005 testimony Wade Robson described it as follows:

8   I met him first when I was five years old.

9   I think it was ‘87. And Michael was touring, he was

10  doing the “Bad” tour. And I was imitating him as a

11  dancer at that point. And he was holding these –

12  it was in connection with Target or something like

13  that, holding these dance, like, contests all around

14  wherever he traveled. So I entered one of the dance

15  contests and ended up winning it, went on to the

16  finals and won that, and then the prize was to meet

17  Michael.

18  So I met him after one of his concerts in

19  Brisbane, Australia. And it was just like in a

20  meet-and-greet sort of room. And we met, and I was

21  in my whole, you know, “Bad” outfit and everything.

22  He was sort of laughing and tripping out on my

23  outfit and asked if I danced. I said, “Yeah.” And

24  he asked me to perform with him in the show the next

25  night.

26  So after — it was like the end of the

27  concert, I pulled up, performed in the show with

28  him. The next — the next – I think within the

1   next couple of days, my mother and I went to visit

2   him at his hotel room, and we stayed for a couple of

3   hours. It was in Brisbane, Australia. Just talking

4   about what I want to do. And then that was kind of

5   it at first.

6   And then for the next two years, we didn’t

7   have any contact at all. And I continued pursuing

8  my dance career in Australia. And then the company

9  that I was with, the dance company, was traveling to

10 America to do a performance at Disneyland.

11 So we all went.

Request for admission No.3

Admit that the performance at Disneyland of the Johnny Young Talent School where Wade Robson was dancing was scheduled for one day only – it was January 26 which was Australia Day celebrated there.

The dance school was invited by Disneyland and Michael had nothing to do with it. In fact he didn’t even know that the whole Robson family had arrived in the US. The family included Wade, his sister, mother, father and two grandparents.

Here is Wade Robson’s performance on January 26, 1990 (an interesting sight):

Request for admission No.4

Admit that since the complaint is not mentioning January 26 as the date of the performance it produces the impression that the family had the telephone number of Michael Jackson or his secretary Norma Stakos, and that they contacted him just after the performance and “on the following day” met him.

In reality the family managed to get Norma Stakos’s telephone number only on the seventh day after the performance (on Thursday, February 1st) and called her hoping that Michael would recollect the boy he had met in Australia two years before that. To their great joy he did remember him and Norma Stakos arranged for a visit to Michael Jackson’s recording studio the next day after that telephone call, which was Friday, February 2, 1990.

Compare it with the text of the claim:

“When Plaintiff was 7 years old, Plaintiff and his family took a trip to California because Plaintiff’s dance company, Johnny Young Talent School, was invited to perform at Disneyland.

Plaintiff’s mother, father, sister (not brother) and maternal grandparents accompanied Plaintiff as the idea was to also turn the trip into a family vacation. After the performance, Plaintiff’s mother contacted Norma Staikos (Decedent’s personal assistant at MJJ Productions”) and a meeting was arranged for Plaintiff to meet with Decedent at a recording studio in Van Nuys, California on the following day, February 2, 1990. Following that meeting Decedent invited the entire family to stay the weekend at his ranch in Santa Barbara County, “Neverland”, which they did.”

Admit that Robson’s claim omits the above crucial details creating the impression that the family didn’t seek Michael during the period of January 26 – February 1 but had a sort of a pre-arranged visit with him. It also creates the impression that they took the invitation to his recording studio and then to Neverland in a matter-of-fact way (while in reality it was their wildest dream coming true).

Request for admission No.5

Admit that in her 2005 testimony Joy Robson also confirms that there was no pre-arranged visit and they were “calling around” after Wade’s performance trying to get Michael’s number before being eventually put to Norma Stakos. So it was the family’s ardent desire to see Michael and not the other way around.

4 Q. Do you remember the first time you visited

5 Neverland?

6 A. Yes. It was in January of 1990.

7 Q. And how did you end up visiting Neverland?

8 A. When we were here, we called around, trying

9 to find Michael again. He had told us if we

10 returned to the United States to contact him. So we

11 called around, and we eventually were put onto his

12 personal assistant, which at that time was Norma

13 Stakos, and they called Michael.

14 He remembered us, and said he would like to

15 see us again. So we met him at a recording studio

16 where he was working at the time.

24 Q. And when you came here, there were no

25 arrangements when you first came here to meet with

26 Mr. Jackson?

27 A. No.

Request for admission No.6

Admit that in his 2005 testimony Wade Robson provides even more details about their insistence to establish contact with Michael. It turns out that they cleverly took with them the whole video collection of Wade’s dance stuff for the previous two years to show it to Michael and make him interested in his talent. And when Michael checked out all his videos he was really excited about what he saw.

Wade Robson said about it:

12  As I said, we’d had no contact with

13 Michael or anything. Somehow my mother got in

14 contact with Michael’s secretary at that time, who

15 was Norma Stokes.

21 A. She talked to Michael about — we wanted to

22 see if we could hook up with him again and meet him

23 again. She talked to Michael. Michael remembered

24 me from when I met him when I was five years old,

25 wanted to meet me again.

26 So I was out there with my mother, sister,

27 my father, and grandparents. We all went to meet

28 him at Record One Recording Studios. And this

1 was — this was ‘89.

6 A. We met up with him. He was in between, you

7 know, working on music and that sort of thing. He

8 was doing a photo shoot at the time at the studio.

9 We took some photos with him. My family and I all

10 went into his — sort of like the green room, and

11 played him some videotapes of all the dancing stuff

12 that I’ve been doing over the last two years. And,

13 you know, he was just really excited, checking out

14 everything I had done. And then by the end of the

15 time, he invited my family and I up to the ranch

16 that weekend.

Request for admission No.7

Admit that in his testimony Robson makes it clear that Michael invited them for a weekend in Neverland after he had seen the collection of videos of Wade dancing and was really inspired by his talent.

Robson did indeed have an exceptional talent for dancing like Michael Jackson. Here is another video of his performance on Star Search in Australia in 1990:

.

Admit that you are very much excited by what you’ve seen (same as I am). So it doesn’t surprise us in the least that Michael was also excited and inspired by Wade’s talent. Michael surely realized his potential and knowing his ever-present desire to help others we can be sure that he was thinking of how to help Wade Robson too and give him a start in his career.

His belief in Wade Robson’s talent explains very well a note he wrote at some point to Robson encouraging him by words: “You are my biggest inspiration now”.

Joy Robson also testified that Michael’s interest in Robson was because he saw Wade’s potential and that for Michael it was like looking in the mirror at his old self:

18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Why did you allow Wade to

19 spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson?

26 A. They enjoyed each other. They — they were

27 very similar people. I remember Michael telling me 

28 early on that it was like looking in the mirror, he 

1 saw himself all over again. His interest was 

2 because he saw Wade’s potential. And Wade loved

3 everything that Michael did and wanted to learn as 

4 much as he could.

Request for admission No.8

Wade Robson on Star Search in 1990

Admit that even when Wade Robson still lived in Australia he took every effort to look like Michael Jackson. Even his hair looked like Michael’s and his “Australian” image strikes you as a total replica of MJ, only a little one.

Actually the nickname of “little one” was given by MJ to Wade Robson when he first saw him in 1987 when Wade was 5 and the name stuck.

“Australian-born Wade, who won National acclaim as a dancer `Downunder’ on popular talent show Starsearch rose quickly to the forefront of young performers in Australia after winning a Michael Jackson dance competition in Brisbane. The win led to him dancing with his idol on stage at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre and pint-sized Wade – tagged `Little One’ by Michael – stole the show and won the superstar’s heart.”

http://onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-story-on-life-in-michael-jacksons-shadow-1995/

Joy, Chantal and Wade Robson present Wade’s first album QUO

As a side note let us also admit that as soon as Wade Robson arrived in the US his image dramatically changed.

He dyed his hair and shaved his head thus making it clear that he was looking for a different image for himself and pursuing a career different from a simple imitation of MJ and his dance.

Let us also admit that Michael surely supported him in this independent pursuit of his identity, or otherwise Robson would have kept to his old a la Michael Jackson style.

Request for admission No.9

Admit that Wade Robson’s present complaint does not say a word how Wade and Chantal Robson found themselves in Michael Jackson’s room on the first night they were in Neverland and doesn’t explain that the children themselves pleaded with their parents to let them stay there.

The complaint omits that all of them including MJ were in the parents’ room discussing Wade’s costumes and it was getting late, but the children wanted the joy  to go on and pleaded with their parents to let them stay with MJ and they agreed asking for his permission first. He said: ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to stay, that’s fine.’

Joy Robson described it as follows:

8 A. Well, the first — the first night they had

9 been out doing the usual thing at Neverland,

10 playing. And later that night, they all came back

11 to the suite where my husband and I were staying,

12 and my parents were with us, as well. We were all

13 talking in the suite.

14 And Wade had been impersonating Michael for

15 some time and had lots of costumes of Michael’s that

16 we had made. And Michael was looking at them, and

17 we were just all discussing those.

18 And then it was getting late, and my

19 children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my

20 daughter, said, ‘Can we stay with Michael.’

21 And my husband and I sort of looked at

22 Michael, and said, ‘Well, if that’s okay with you.’

23 And he said, ‘Oh, absolutely. If they’d like to

24 stay, that’s fine.’

25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to

26 stay in his room?

27 A.Yes.

In his testimony Wade Robson even explained why they wanted to stay with Michael – they found a new friend and didn’t want to leave his side. “It’s the same way with any child”, said Robson.

2 I remember Chantel,

3 my sister, wanted to as well.

28 What caused you to ask him if you could stay with

1 him in his room?

2 A. Well, it’s the same way with any child.

3 When you — you know, when you have a best friend or

4 a new friend that you found, you always want to stay

5 in the same room with them.

Request for admission No.10

Now admit that from this point on the Robsons’ testimony at the 2005 trial differs dramatically from everything Wade Robson is claiming now.

Wade’s testimony of 2005 says  that on the first night (Saturday, February 3rd) he slept in MJ’s bed on the ground floor and his sister Chantal was with them, same as the next night. To be more precise according to him she was in the same bed with them the “entire time”.

In the process of describing it Wade also makes it clear that it wasn’t sleeping “with” Michael Jackson – it was just sleeping in his bed.

21 Q. All right. Now, the first time that you

22 slept with Mr. Jackson you were seven years old; is

23 that correct?

24 A. I slept in the same bed with him. But, yes,

25 I was seven.

26 Q. Did you understand my question to mean

27 something other than that?

28 A. Sounded like it.

1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed

2 with him when you were seven years old; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?

6 A. My sister, Chantal Robson.

7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult

10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into

11 bed with Mr. Jackson?

12 A. True.

13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.

14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your

15 seventh year; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during

18 that week as well?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?

21 A. Yes.

Today he also says that the first night Chantal was with them, but the next night she allegedly “expressed concern about it”, suggested they both sleep upstairs and when Wade declined she went upstairs alone, and this is when the “sexual activities” allegedly began.

The Second Amended Claim (points 10-11) says about it:

“The first night of the weekend, on or about February 3, 1990, Plaintiff and his sister slept in Decedent’s bedroom in the same bed with Decedent downstairs.

The next night, Plaintiff’s sister, who was 3 years older than Plaintiff, expressed concern about sleeping in the same bed with Decedent, and suggested they both sleep upstairs. Plaintiff declined and again slept with Decedent downstairs. The sexual activities began on or about that night, February 4, 1990. <text redacted.>

That was the beginning of Decedent’s sexual abuse of Plaintiff which over the next 7 years would regularly include sexual acts as described in paragraph 22 below. “

What a horrible, horrible story. So the abuse started the very next night and the girl couldn’t see it because she was in the bedroom upstairs and this is when the nightmare for poor Wade Robson began?

Yes, it would be horrible, horrible indeed, if only Chantal Robson were not telling a totally different story.

Request for admission No.11

The problem is that in her testimony at the 2005 trial the nearly 26-year old Chantal is telling the opposite of what Wade is saying now.

She says that it was on the first night that she didn’t want to invade on Michael’s privacy and eventually went upstairs expecting her younger brother to follow her (he either declined or had already fallen asleep by the time she went there).

Her explanation of why she decided to do it is understandable – it was their first visit to Neverland and in contrast to others she saw Michael for the second time in her life, so her natural reserve took the upper hand and she decided to leave MJ not to invade on his privacy.

However by the second night they already had a much closer friendship with Michael and her previous considerations didn’t bother her that much, and the children were evidently so tired that both of them – Wade and Chantal – fell asleep in Michael’s bed without thinking whether it was appropriate or not. She says that there was no “idea” behind her sleeping downstairs on the second night – they simply fell asleep there and that’s that.

So the resume of the story is that it was not on the first, but SECOND night that Chantal slept in Michael’s bed. The first time isn’t ruled out either as she could first drop in the bed but later change her mind and go upstairs.

Let me remind you once again that Wade Robson claims that the alleged abused started that very second time he stayed in MJ’s room.

Let us also recall that Chantal didn’t know that he would claim anything like that ten years later and therefore explained it the way it really was in her testimony in 2005. This is what she said and please note how insistent she is on her words:

19 Q. So the very first night that you

20 went to Neverland you spent the night in Mr.

21 Jacksons bedroom?

22 A. In his bedroom, yes.

23 Q. And on that first night, you slept

24 downstairs in the bedroom, correct?

25 A. No.

26 Q. You slept upstairs?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Did you — or I’ll rephrase that.

1 Were you interviewed by Scott Ross, an

2 investigator for Mr. Jackson, on May 2nd, 2005?

3 A. Yes. Not quite sure if that was the date,

4 but, yes.

5 Q. That was just a few days ago?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. And did you tell Mr. Ross that you recalled

8 the first night that you slept downstairs, and Wade

9 went upstairs and slept with Mr. Jackson?

10 A. No. It would be the other way around.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. Michael and Wade slept — Michael and Wade

13 slept downstairs and I slept upstairs on the first

14 night.

15 Q. All right. So Mr. Jackson and Wade slept

16 together separately from the area that you slept in?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Why was that?

19 A. Because I left and went upstairs.

20 Q. Why did you leave and go upstairs?

21 A. Because I was a little older at that point

22 and I felt like I was interfering in Michael’s

23 bedroom, so I left and went upstairs.

24 Q. Because you wanted to give Mr. Jackson some

25 privacy?

26 A. Yes.

27 Q. And he was alone with your brother at that

28 time?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And your brother was seven years old?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that night, your brother slept in the

5 same bed with Michael Jackson?

6 A. Yes. I told him to come up with me.

7 Q. You told him to come up with you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was that because you felt like he shouldn’t

10    be sleeping in a bed with a grown man?

11 A. Not at all.

12 Q. Then why did you tell him to do that?

13 A. Because I didn’t want to make Michael feel

14 like two people were invading his space.

15 Q. Something about that first night made you

16 feel uncomfortable, didn’t it?

17 A. No, not at all.

18 Q. Didn’t you say you felt more comfortable the

19 second night to Mr. Ross when you spoke to him a few

20 days ago?

21 A. Comfortable with my friendship with Michael,

22 yes.

23 Q. And that next night, you slept in the same

24 bed with Michael Jackson?

25 A. I did.

22 Q. Whose idea was it that you sleep in Mr.

23 Jackson’s bed?

24 A. It was actually our idea.

25 Q. Sorry?

26 A. My brother and I. It was actually not an

27 idea. We just fell asleep.

Request for admission No.12

Admit that Wade’s own sister who was three years older than Wade and was ten at the time, spoke of a totally different timeline which disproves in principle his present theory of ‘how the abuse started’.

He claims that it started on the second night. And she says that on that very night the ten-year old her slept with the seven-year old Wade in one bed.

A special beauty of the situation is that Chantal’s testimony has a priority over Wade’s current story as she testified ten years ago when she was yet unaware that her innocent statement would contradict Wade Robson’s later claim.

Chantal had no reason to lie about where she slept on those nights. Whichever way it was, it turned out that one night she was together with Wade and the other night she was not, and it is only the succession of those nights which was different.

Also admit that at the time of her testimony at the 2005 trial it didn’t make any difference which of the nights she was sleeping downstairs and it was only the fact that Wade was alone with Michael at least on one of those occasions that had any significance for the jury. Whether it was the first or second night didn’t matter then.

It is only today that it matters very much.

Admit that by insisting on her story in 2005 Chantal could even produce a negative impression on the jurors as they could think that the members of the family were not quite consistent in what they said and she was not winning anything by telling her story. However she repeatedly insisted it was the way she described it and since she was the older and more responsible of the two we can fully believe what she said.

Also admit that these very small differences in their accounts make it clear once again that before the testimony in 2005 the members of the Robson family did not sit down to agree about the most basic facts and this means that nobody was coaching them prior to their testimony – neither Michael, nor anyone. If someone had been coaching them their theories would have been fully consistent with each other.

Request for admission No.13

Admit that since Chantal was adamant that the second night she slept in Michael’s bed it means that the ‘abuse’ did not start on February 4, 1990 and that Wade Robson is horribly lying to us now.

In fact, this mismatch in his story is the direct evidence of his lies.

If you were abused in your childhood things like that just don’t get forgotten. They imprint in your memory in their full entirety – in time, space and relation to all other events of the period up to the smallest details. You remember them in succession and how one thing entailed another. You remember the oddest of details, the expression of the face, the thoughts racing through your mind and sometimes even the smells.

It is simply impossible to forget on ‘which night it happened’ (if it happened at all). Only those who have never gone through this experience can think that it’s like riding a bicycle and it doesn’t matter whether it was the first or second day of your stay in the country.

No, the timing matters very much and once it happened to you, you will never forget. Never.

So let us finally admit that Wade Robson’s “Second Amended Complaint” is telling lies from the very start of it. It begins with a big lie and goes on with them throughout his claim.

In short, Wade Robson is a LIAR. And hereby he is requested to admit it.

(The list of requests for admission may be continued)

We are comparing Robson’s complaint, containing fictitious allegations against Michael Jackson, with his own and his mother’s and sister’s testimonies at the 2005 trial. Up till now the process helped us to discover that everything Robson said about his so-called abuse – and I really mean everything - is a fake.

Indeed, the story of a start and continuation of “abuse” allegedly during his first visit to the US and MJ’s Neverland has turned out to be a silly and outrageous lie from its very beginning to end. Pure lies like that seldom occur but Robson’s papers are a rare exception to the rule – the story told by him is a 100% lie.

Due to the abundance of lies the restoration of the truth is a long process and has already taken two posts (see here and here please), and up till now we have only reached point 13 of his “Second Amended Complaint” filed on February 19, 2014.

So this is the point we are starting with now. It says:

“The following Monday,  Plaintiff, his mother and sister went to stay with Decedent at his apartment in the Westwood section of Los Angeles in Wilshire Blvd, across the street from a Holiday Inn, while Plaintiff’s father and grandparents continued on their road trip for a few more days. Plaintiff slept with Decedent in his bed at the Westwood apartment; Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel. The sexual abuse occurred on each of those nights as well. Later that week, the entire family returned to Australia.”

This paragraph is of tremendous importance – it will be instrumental for learning a lot of many other details associated with Michael Jackson and will help us understand a much bigger picture as a whole. Therefore this post will cover not only those few days spent by the Robsons in Los Angeles, but will extend towards their May 1990 visit when Wade Robson and his mother returned to Los Angeles to take part in Michael’s commercial for LA Gear and stayed in the US, according to their testimony, for whole 6 weeks.

But first let’s clarify what is meant by “the following Monday” in the above paragraph.

THE TIMELINE ACCORDING TO THE US CALENDAR

The ‘following Monday” was February 12^th, 1990 which was the beginning of the family’s last week in the US.

Quoting Robson’s papers their visit to the US ended sometime ‘later that week’ after ‘a few more days’ spent outside Neverland. After the second weekend at Neverland the family split and Wade’s father and grandparents went to San Francisco while Wade and his mother Joy and sister Chantal went back to Los Angeles, this time with Michael Jackson. After those few days the family reunited and ‘later that week’ they left for Australia.

My 1990 calendar marks the few days the family spent with Michael in LA as Monday–Wednesday Feb.12-14^th.  Thursday, Feb.15th was most probably the day when the family reunited in Los Angeles (they should have got together and packed their luggage, shouldn’t they?) and Friday, Feb.16th is marked as a probable date for their leave for Australia.

In case they left the country a day later, their time in LA together with Michael can be prolonged by one day, but this is the absolute maximum we can allow for it. And this variant seems to be an unlikely one as the complaint said they left “later in the week” and not at the end of it, so for all we know the departure could be even as early as Thursday, February the 15th.

So since the period they stayed in LA can be stretched longer or shorter, I’ve chosen the average of three days they spent together with Michael as not the longest, but not the shortest option either.

Here is the calendar for January-February 1990 in the USA:

Now that you have a calendar in front of you it would be nice to refresh in your memory the correct timeline of all the events on January-Fabruary 1990 the way they really happened and not fantasized by Robson:

• The time of their arrival in the USA could be the eve of January 26^th which was Australia day celebrated in Disneyland. On that day Wade danced with the Johnny Talent Time School and imitated Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal”. The performance was on one day only.

• Then the family tried to contact Michael for more than a week as they didn’t have his or his secretary’s contact numbers.

• When the meeting was finally arranged they met him in his recording studio and were invited to spend a weekend at Neverland. This is February 3rd-4th, 1990 according to Robson’s present complaint.

• Then came a week-long break when the family left Neverland. The break was confirmed by Wade’s mother during her 2005 testimony as well as her deposition and testimony before the grand jury in 1993 (most probably Wade said the same during his own deposition in 1993 before the two D.A. of Los Angeles and his own lawyer).

• On the second weekend of February 10-11th, 1990 the family returned to Neverland and spent two more days there.

• The following Monday (Feb.12th) Wade, his mother Joy and his sister Chantal went back to Los Angeles together with Michael while Wade’s father and grandparents travelled to San Francisco.

• Later in the week they reunited and left for Australia.

• All in all the Robsons stayed in the US for approximately three and a half weeks.

• So out of the maximum of 24 days according to this estimation the time they spent with Jackson was seven days (marked green in the calendar) which is exactly a “week” which the seven-year old Wade remembered at the time.

Four days out of these seven days have already been accounted for. We’ve determined that no abuse could start on those days even in theory. Here is quick recap why not:

a) Robson’s “second night” story is false as the ten-year old Chantal slept in one bed with her younger brother that night and her testimony at the trial was the exact opposite of what Robson is saying now.

b) Robson’s story about a “week-long abuse after the family left him behind” is another crazy lie as he was simply not there at the time. The whole of the family left Neverland for a week and Joy Robson extensively testified to it.

c) And both nights of the second weekend Wade and his sister Chantal spent together in Michael’s room again, so any “continuation of abuse” is highly unlikely again, especially since it never started in the first place and everything Robson said up till now was refuted here as a complete LIE.

This way we get to the last three or so days of their first visit to the US and this post will be an attempt to restore the truth behind the more lies Robson is telling us about that period.

THE TOYS-R-US SHOP

Back in 2005 Tom Sneddon asked similar questions and at some point raised with Joy Robson the subject of a Toys-R-Us shop. We are extremely interested in this subject too.

Tom Sneddon says that the shopping visit took place in the night. This was customary for MJ as it was his only chance to avoid the mob. This makes the visit to the toy shop possible only when the Robson family was staying together with Michael during the night, irrespective of where it was.

These nightly occasions can now be counted on the fingers of one hand only. They included 1) two nights on the first weekend at Neverland, 2) two nights on the second weekend at Neverland and 3) some two or three nights spent with MJ in Los Angeles with Joy Robson and her children.

At the 2005 trial Joy Robson remembered that visit to Toys-R-Us. She didn’t accompany her children there and couldn’t recall when exactly the visit took place, but she was sure that it wasn’t during the first weekend, probably not during the second and all she could barely remember was that the children went there with MJ possibly after the opening hours:

3 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: During the first weekend4 trip to Neverland, did you go to Toys-R-Us?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Was that the second weekend?

7 A. I never went to Toys-R-Us.

8 Q. Did your children go to Toys-R-Us?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Which one of those weekends did they go?

11 A. I don’t recall.

12 Q. But you do recall a trip?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And they went with Mr. Jackson?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And it was after hours, the store was

17 closed?

18 A. I don’t remember.

19 Q. And they were allowed to buy anything — or

20 allowed to get anything they wanted and Mr. Jackson

21 paid for it, correct?

22 A. I think so.

Let us try and narrow down the Toy-R-Us episode to when and where it could indeed happen.

Joy Robson says the visit was not during the first weekend and this is correct. The first weekend was a busy one. On Saturday February 3rd, 1990 Michael accepted an award from Japan via a satellite and therefore spent only part of the day with the Robsons. Due to a huge time difference (Japan is 17 hours ahead of the US) if the ceremony in Japan took place on Sunday evening local time, it would fall on midnight in the US the previous day, and if the ceremony took place in Japan on Sunday morning it would fall on late Saturday afternoon in the US.

The latter variant fits better with the Robsons’ testimony. Joy said that they arrived at Neverland first and even had time to look around the house before Michael’s arrival. He came sometime in the afternoon, so on February 3rd they actually had very little time together before the evening came (when the children asked for a late night stay in Michael’s room).

Sunday, February 4th was another busy night. ABC was airing a tribute to Sammy Davis’s 60th year in show business and Michael and the Robson family surely watched the ceremony on TV. It was a highly publicized event – the proceeds of the show, some $250,000, were going to the United Negro College Fund and Michael sang there a song “You were here” as a tribute to Sammy Davis who was suffering from throat cancer. By then the man could not utter a word and actually died several months after the show aired. The show was filmed in November the previous year but was broadcast on February 4th, 1990, and since it was so emotional and significant an event (which later won the Emmy for Outstanding Musical Special) Michael surely watched it live on TV – most probably together with the Robson family.

So the trip to Toys-R-Us shop certainly did not take place during their first weekend at Neverland.

You can watch Michael’s tribute to Sammy Davis Jr. here:

Now could the visit to Toy-R-Us take place during their second weekend in Neverland? 

It looks like it did not either.

To determine it a map could be a great help, and the Google map indeed shows us that the Toy-R-Us shops closest to Neverland are in Santa Maria and Santa Barbara (the places where the two grand juries would later sit in the Chandler case), and both of these towns are rather far away from the ranch – one is more than 40 kms to the north of it and the other is more than 60 kms to the south. Both distances are really too big especially considering that it was a night trip as Tom Sneddon claimed.

Santa Maria is more than 40kms to the north of Neverland and Santa Barbara is more than 60kms to the south of it

But if both weekends are out, so when could the trip take place?

And this is when we recollect that after the second weekend at Neverland Michael and the three Robsons went to Los Angeles. The map shows that Los Angeles has a whole network of Toys-R-Us shops and several of them are not far from the Wilshire boulevard in Westwood where Michael was said to have his condo.  Actually a visit to that shop was probably the whole reason why Michael went to LA with the family at all.

Toy-T-Us shops are all over the western part of Los Angeles and are not far from the Wilshire boulevard in Westwood where Michael was said to have his condo. A night visit there after the closing hours was a possible option

Not that the visit to a toy shop matters to us that much. Michael liked shopping for toys and visited Toys-R-Us shops at every opportunity that presented itself, and when some children were around him there was probably no stopping him.

However the correct timing for that visit enables to place it on one of those nights which Wade, Chantal and Michael spent in Los Angeles together and determine that that it was not spent in a bedroom, but in a brightly lit toy shop.

Was it a suitable night for the “abuse”? Hardly so. The journey to the shop and back should have taken at least an hour, not to mention the time spent choosing and trying out various toys there, same as the natural desire of the children to play with their toys when they came back.

And the fact that crowns it all is that on the night visit to a toy shop Chantal was with her brother Wade again and all throughout the night too!

So out of the three nights available for “abuse” one night is already out. What about the remaining two?

THE HOLIDAY INN

Point 13 in Robson’s complaint describes their stay in LA in a very strange way. On the one hand it says that Joy, Wade and Chantal went to “stay with MJ in his apartment in Westwood” and on the other hand “his mother and sister stayed at the Inn across the street”. So which way it was? Did the girls stay in MJ’s apartment or did they stay at the Holiday Inn?

How are we supposed to read this?

“The following Monday, Plaintiff, his mother and sister went to stay with Decedent at his apartment in the Westwood section of Los Angeles in Wilshire Blvd, across the street from a Holiday Inn.<> Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel.”

Back in 2005 Tom Sneddon was also trying to untangle their memories of who stayed where on their first visit to MJ’s condo and how was it different from their second visit to the US when they came in May 1990 to work on a commercial and stayed at the Holiday Inn for 6 weeks.

Sneddon called their visit to LA in February 1990 a “January visit” but apart from that his timing is okay. Read this piece from his examination of Joy Robson and you will probably notice that it contains a tremendously important fact.

She recalls that during their winter visit to LA with MJ she and her daughter Chantal stayed a couple of nights in MJ’s condo sleeping on the floor there.

23 Q. In May, when you came back, it was for the

24 purpose of your son participating in an L.A. Gear

25 commercial?

26 A. Yes.

13 Q. Now, at the time that you came over here for

14 the L.A. Gear commercial, you were staying in The

15 Holiday Inn?

16 A. Yes. In Westwood.

17 Q. And you were here for approximately six

18 weeks?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And Mr. Jackson had a condo right across the

21 street?

22 A. Yes.

28 Q. And on a couple of those occasions, you                9232

1 actually were in the condo with them and you and

2 your daughter, or you, slept on the floor; do you

3 recall that?

4 A. I think that was the first trip that my

5 daughter and I slept on the floor. It wasn’t during

6 that time.

7 Q. The first trip back in January?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was there a time that you visited Mr.

10 Jackson in his condo in January?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, these visits to The Holiday — these

13 visits to Mr. Jackson when you were staying at The

14 Holiday Inn, many of those calls from Mr. Jackson

15 were very late at night; isn’t that correct?

16 A. Yes, he was working.

17 MR. SNEDDON: Move to strike as

18 nonresponsive, Your Honor.

19 THE COURT: I’ll strike the last — after

20 ‘Yes.’

Now we know that though reservations for the three of them were made at the Holiday Inn in February 1990, the actual time the family spent there was minimal, if any at all.

Joy probably slept there just once, when the children went shopping for toys, but on the two remaining nights she and her daughter Chantal were surely together with Wade and Michael as they slept on the floor in Michael’s  condo.

This nails down another of Wade Robson’s lies – his mother and sister were not staying at the Holiday Inn as he alleges in his complaint.

At least they were not sleeping there. Instead they slept together with Wade in Michael’s apartment.

And this means that on all three nights of their stay in Los Angeles Wade was never alone with Michael – on the shopping night he was accompanied by his sister Chantal and on the remaining two nights his mother and sister stayed with them in the same condo and slept on the floor there.

WHY SLEEP ON THE FLOOR?

Each time we hear that someone slept on the floor in Michael’s apartment we wonder why it had to be the floor and not the bed. Indeed, why should a grown-up woman like Joy and her ten-year old daughter Chantal sleep on the floor instead of the bed and for two consecutive nights too?

Your subconscious mind suggests that there was probably one bed there and it was occupied by Michael and Wade (?) Well, admit it that this is what crossed your mind – especially since Wade blatantly claims that he slept in Michael’s bed at his Westwood apartment on Wilshire boulevard:

“Plaintiff slept with Decedent in his bed at the Westwood apartment; Plaintiff’s mother and sister stayed across the street at the Holiday Inn hotel.”

The story about “his mother’s and sister’s stay at the Holiday Inn” has just been proven to be a lie, but how true is Wade’s story about sleeping in MJ’s bed and is there a way to verify it?

And here comes the moment to recall the testimony of Michael’s maid Blanca Francia and one detail of it which has suddenly acquired a tremendous significance for us.

At the 2005 trial Blanca Francia testified that there were no beds in Michael’s condo in Wilshire boulevard – they were simply never there and in none of the rooms:

 23 Like –

24 kind of an apartment, suite. Called it “The

25 Hideout.”

26 Q. Where was that; do you know?

27 A. I know it’s on Wilshire.                                        4981

2 Q. Okay. Was there a bed at that residence?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Never?

5 A. Never.

6 Q. The whole time that you were cleaning there?

7 A. Yeah.

Again and again the incredulous prosecutor and counsel for the defense asked her about a bed in the Wilshire condo and again and again she would repeat the same thing – the hideout apartment in the condominium on Wilshire boulevard didn’t have a single bed in it:

22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about the hideout. At

23 the hideout, you had mentioned that there wasn’t a

24 bed. What did Mr. Jackson sleep in?

25 A. He sleeps in a sleeping bag.

26 Q. All right. The whole time that he was at

27 the hideout?

28 A. Yeah. There was no bed.                                       5015

1 Q. I’m sorry?

2 A. There was no bed there.

16 Q. Okay. Now, you testified that in the

17 apartment owned by Mr. Jackson that you referred to

18 as “The Hideout,” there was no furniture, right?

19 A. Uh-huh.

20 Q. Was there any bed in there at all?

21 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. Now, what did he — I asked you what

26 he slept on, and you said a sleeping bag. Describe

27 the sleeping bag for us. What kind of a sleeping

28 bag was it?                                                                      5016

1 A. A regular sleeping bag that you sleep on.

2 Q. Sleeping bag for one person? For two

3 people? How big?

4 A. A regular one.

5 Q. Just a regular sleeping bag?

6 A. Yeah.

7 Q. Was that sleeping bag always open, or was it

8 rolled up?

9 A. It was open.

10 Q. Always?

11 A. Well, when I made it, I would try to make it

12 like a bed, you know.

13 Q. Were there any blankets on the sleeping bag

14 or under the sleeping bag?

15 A. Yeah, there were blankets.

16 Q. Which? On the sleeping bag or –

17 A. On the sleeping bag, yes.

18 Q. Was the sleeping bag simply on the floor?

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Was there carpet on the floor?

21 A. Yes.

Surprise-surprise, but Blanca Francia makes it absolutely clear that Michael Jackson’s condo in Wilshire boulevard did not have any beds at all. The furniture in Michael’s hideout was extremely scarce – a table, a chair, a TV set and sleeping bags on the floor. She actually says there was no furniture there.

Why so? Most probably because Michael used the flat for practicing dance there, and preferred to leave the whole space of it unoccupied with as little furniture as was only possible.

A standard sleeping bag for one person

So where did all of them sleep then?

Michael and all the rest of them slept in sleeping bags on the floor.

The sleeping bags were a standard size – for one person only. So most probably each of them had his own sleeping bag lying open on the carpet and the whole sleeping arrangement was evidently a highly open one too.

A doubler, non-standard sleeping bag for two persons. Michael Jackson’s condo had standard one-person sleeping bags only

Michael’s detractors will naturally say that it doesn’t matter whether there was or wasn’t a bed there – abuse can take place even without any bed, and this we will agree about.

However Wade Robson is making to us a clear statement that he “slept in one bed with Michael” and this is where his “abuse” occurred on each of the nights “again”.

And now we discover that this statement is totally fictional and has no leg to stand on.

To begin with there was simply no bed there, and secondly we are absolutely unable to spot the moment when that alleged abuse started, not to mention it happening “again”!

Is it possible for a real victim of abuse to forget whether there was a bed or there wasn’t?

Absolutely not.

I’ve already written on numerous occasions that the horrible things that happened to you in your childhood imprint in your memory in their full entirety including the time of day, location, circumstances, details and even smells associated with it.

If you really experienced something like that in your past, it comes back to you as a flashback when you find yourself in exactly the same place with all the details that go with it. You are incapable of changing a single detail of that scene, and you see yourself once again as the little you entering that elevator and there he was, someone in a dark coat whom you didn’t even see up his waist…

And even though thirty years have passed since that incident you will still remember that it happened in the elevator and not in a room or stairs of the same building.

The change is simply impossible because your flashback makes you see and re-experience it in exactly the same circumstances and exactly the same way it was, with not a single change made to it.

So when Wade Robson talks now of some abuse taking place on a “bed” and we find that there was actually none there, it means that he is describing something fictional, because if there was no bed, there was no abuse either. 

Still doubtful? Then recall an accident you had when you were riding a bicycle down a country hill and ran into a tree at full speed there. Will you be able to change anything in that picture if someone tells you were actually in a big avenue and you ran into some post there? Though the accident itself is absolutely the same you memory will never agree that the crash taking place on a country road happened in a town street instead. Such a replacement is simply ruled out and this is all there is to it.

The same with Robson. If the crime was alleged to be on the bed there and you discover that there was no bed, this is irrefutable evidence that there was no crime.

Now what remains of Robson’s story as a result of this analysis?

We’ve discovered that:

• the abuse didn’t happen on “the second night” at Neverland,
• it didn’t happen on the second weekend either,
• it didn’t happen during the week in between the two weekends because Robson was simply not there,
• it didn’t happen on the night of shopping for toys
• and it didn’t happen in Michael’s condo either as there was simply no bed there described in his complaint.

And we also discovered that Wade Robson is accompanying his false story with a good deal of fraudulent details meant to make his story more “realistic” and “credible”.

In short we DISCOVERED ROBSON TO BE A LIAR and he is again requested to be man enough to admit it.

The “news” is reported even on page 6 of Google search results and goes well down the line too

Updated and corrected on 04/08/15

Page after page the Google search results show the extent of the disease spreading on the Internet and claiming that the Robson/Safechuck legal team says that Michael Jackson allegedly paid “$200 million in hush money to silence 20 sex abuse victims”.

The screenshot on the right is page 6 out of ten or more Google pages reproducing the above story by all sorts of media outlets. Considering that each page has standard ten listings on it, at least 100 media sources are involved in spreading the fabricated story, not to mention the various TV channels also retelling the lie.

If I’m not mistaken the first to introduce it were the “Mirror” (a UK tabloid with some reputation dragging behind it) and the good old Stacy Brown who reminds us of himself each time some hearing is supposed to take place in the Robson/Safechuck case.

The Mirror calls Michael Jackson “Jacko” and claims that  “a wealth of evidence was excluded from the criminal proceedings against Jackson in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases”:

“Wade Robson and James Safechuck claim they were both sexually abused by Jacko and are seeking unspecified amounts in punitive damages.

The pair brought their legal actions in 2013 and 2014 – after the statutory deadline – but hope Judge Mitchell Beckloff will allow them to proceed. However, any payout would be dwarfed by the £134million lawyers claim that Jackson, who died in 2009, allegedly shelled out in order to keep silence.

Crucially, if Judge Beckloff finds in the pair’s favour, they would be able introduce a wealth of evidence excluded from the criminal proceedings against him in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases. It would include graphic details of the alleged abuse but also how much each was paid to keep quiet”, said the Mirror.

From the same story we find out that the news is reported not by the lawyers themselves but by a “source close to the legal team”:

“A source close to their legal team said: “The judge during Jackson’s criminal case ruled much of the prosecution evidence could not be heard.

“They thought it was pivotal to the case and was crucial in Jackson receiving a not guilty verdict. The team thinks if Judge Beckloff allows their cases to proceed it will allow the evidence to be heard and prove beyond doubt he was guilty.”

And finally we learn that the big disclosure and ensuing discussion were to take place on Tuesday, April 7, 2015:

Los Angeles Superior Court is expected to rule on Tuesday whether two alleged victims cases can bring claims against the Thriller star’s estate.

If the judge agrees, damning evidence barred from the King of Pop’s original child sex abuse trial could be heard for the first time.”

QUESTIONS

Well, all of it is very interesting of course, only I wonder why no journalist asked a number of questions crossing the mind of an average concerned reader. For example:

– How come the lead prosecutors in the 2005 case Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen hid this “wealth of evidence” from public view and never leaked a single piece of it to the press?

We could understand their silence if they hadn’t known, but according to this news they knew everything all right and presented all the evidence to the judge, were rebuffed for some reason and still kept silent, so untypically for themselves. The prosecutors, investigators and policemen never mentioned it at any of their numerous press-conferences and interviews, so does it mean that “mad dog” Tom Sneddon (the unofficial nickname for the Santa Barbara District Attorney) was protecting the good name of Michael Jackson?

– And what about the press? Where were they, same as the vigilant FBI, the Department for Family and Children Services or the veteran investigative reporter like Diane Dimond? How could all of them make so terrible an oversight and overlook the judge’s ruling that should have been listed on the open official page of the court?

– And why did the judge allow the testimony of June Chandler and Blanca Francia (whose son reportedly received $2mln for two incidents of tickling) but simultaneously ruled against the testimony of 20 victims whose abuse must have been much worse if it really paid them $10mln each?

– And where on the LA Superior Court official site is there the ruling of the judge who took so horrible a decision that made it impossible to hear all this damning prosecution evidence at the 2005 trial? Can we have the date of the ruling and a direct link to it, please?

In my opinion every concerned reader should have these questions asked and answered or otherwise the fooling and cheating process will never end. The public wants to know and we should be the first to demand the answers!

HEARING ON “APRIL 7″

The only April hearing is set for April 10, 2015. No mention of “Tuesday” April 7 hearing is made on the official site of the LA Superior Court

Another thing which would be necessary to clarify is why the Mirror and everybody else referred to a hearing at the LA Superior Court on Tuesday April 7, however the official page for the respective case does not list the date.

The only April hearing indicated there is April 10, so it is absolutely unclear what April 7th hearing the Mirror had in mind when they made their story and whether it was meant to take place at all.

Whatever the case APP (the Australian Associated Press news agency)  has already obtained information that the above ‘hearing’ brought about a new delay in the case.

Now the Estate will have to wait until May when the judge is going to look into the reply of Robson/Safechuck legal team to the Motion for Summary Judgment made by the Estate sometime at the end of March.

Note on SUMMARY JUDGMENT:

• It is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.
• Any party may move for summary judgment; it is not uncommon for both parties to seek it. 
• A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious.
• A party may also move for summary judgment in order to demonstrate to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial?

The APP news agency presents the delay as if it were Robson and Safechuck who would “have to” wait now, while in reality the postponement is needed by their lawyers who want more time to get themselves ready to oppose the Estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment:

Aussie’s Michael Jackson case delayed

PETER MITCHELL AAP

APRIL 08, 2015 4:01AM

AUSTRALIAN dance choreographer Wade Robson will have to wait a few more months to find out if he can pursue a slice of alleged sexual abuser Michael Jackson’s $US1.5 billion ($A2.0 billion) estate.

LEGAL teams for Robson, another alleged Jackson victim, James Safechuck, and the late King of Pop’s estate were scheduled to appear before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff on Tuesday.

However, the court date was pushed back to May.

Robson and Safechuck missed a statutory deadline when they filed their claims more than a year after Jackson’s 2009 death and Judge Beckloff will rule if their cases can proceed.

Robson, 32, and Safechuck, 36, both allege Jackson abused them when they were children.

A lawyer for Jackson’s estate, Howard Weitzman, has labelled Robson’s delayed allegations as “outrageous and pathetic”.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/breaking-news/aussies-michael-jackson-case-delayed/story-fnj6ehik-1227295008188

In addition to Radar Online and several media outlets which in August 2014 published Robson’s court documents and claimed that his lawsuit was worth $1.62 billion, the one and a half billion demand was also reported by Examiner.com which as it turns out is property of no other than Philip Anschutz-owned AEG (it was acquired by the company in early 2014).

I hope you will agree that Philip Anschutz must value his reputation too much to let his media report some unverified news and sums, and this makes the $1.62 billion wanted by Robson all the more credible to us:

Michael Jackson rape and molestation case: Wade Robson seeks $1.62 billion

August 5, 2014 2:26 PM MST

Wade Robson, a 31-year-old dance choreographer born in Brisbane, Australia, is accusing the late pop singer Michael Jackson of having molested and raped him when he was a child, according to an Inquisitr report on Tuesday. Robson has made the allegation that he was extensively molested and raped by Jackson. He also says that Jackson called him “son.”

According to Robson, he and the pop star met when he was just five years old. He asserts that he was raped by Jackson systematically from the age of seven through 14 years of age. The new lawsuit claims that the abuse had happened at Michael Jackson’s Santa Barbara County ranch – and other unnamed locations – from 1990 through 1997. The lawsuit is seeking $1.62 billion.

http://www.examiner.com/article/michael-jackson-rape-and-molestation-case-wade-robson-seeks-1-62-billion

From the vehement denials of Wade Robson’s supporters that “it’s preposterous to even imagine that they would be claiming the entire worth of the estate” I get the impression that Robson’s lawyers realized that they had asked for too much and are now trying to sweep the original sums demanded by their claimants somewhat under the rug.

However I suggest we operate in exactly these very original sums – they were reported alongside the salacious details of the 111 pages of certain Robson documentation seen by the same  “sources”, so we either have to believe all or none of it.

The APP source explains to us that $1.6 US billion dollars is roughly equivalent to $2 billion Australian dollars. In Australian dollars the sum is much easier to remember, so now none of us will forget that each of the guys wants a billion of Australian dollars – which incidentally amounts to everything the Estate has.

WHAT THE ESTATE SAYS

In reply to the Stacy-Brown-and-Mirror story spreading in the media like a pandemia of flu the Estate made the following statement:

We have received a number of inquiries from the community regarding the most recent Stacy Brown story. As many of you are aware, the Estate generally prefers not to legitimatize the lies and rumors spread in the media or expand the coverage by other media of those stories. However, the Estate has asked that we share with you the following statement that was issued by Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson, in a response to a request for comment yesterday:

“We are aware of recent false “reports” regarding Michael Jackson having, among other things, paid over $200 million to 20 “victims.” There is not a shred of evidence to support these ludicrous “reports.” It is unfortunate that, even in death, Michael cannot be free of these types of allegations, but we are confident that the truth will prevail in the end, just as it did in 2005 when a jury fully exonerated him.”

The Estate is steadfast in its defense of Michael in courts and that will not change regardless of what lies and rumors are spread by journalists with their own agendas.

WHAT THE COUSIN SAYS

As a final touch to the above news let me also recall that in October 2013 James Safechuck’s unsuspecting cousin Tony shared with the Twitter audience the following tweet:

• “my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened”

A tweet made by Jimmy Safechuck’s cousin Tony on October 16, 2013 https://twitter.com/SHOWTIME16/status/390562076542119936

After introducing some grammar into the above sentence it would read as follows:

• “My cousin and I were two of the kids that used to hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened.”

I think all of us should remember this remarkable evidence from Tony Safechuck. Its main beauty is its spontaneity as no one asked Tony Safechuck to express his views on the subject and he wrote it as a spontaneous reaction to Robson’s allegations. Mind you, all spontaneous statements are extremely valued in the investigation of sex abuse cases, whether they are against or in favour of the accused.

And the next valuable point about Tony Safechuck’s tweet is its date and it is October 16, 2013. This was the time when James Safechuck was only thinking of joining Robson’s lawsuit, and the tweet makes it clear that at that moment Jimmy’s cousin Tony was still unaware of his “bullshit”, sorry, plans.

James Safechuck disclosed his plans in May 2014 (this date is also easy to remember as it was several days prior to releasing the Xscape album) and ever since Tony Safechuck has been keeping mum about the way he and Jimmy hang out together with Michael Jackson, and what a Great person he was, and that all of it was ‘bullshit’, and that no settlements ever happened.

Of course, if Tony Safechuck is summoned to court he will have to explain his little tweet but while he is keeping silence we can reflect on the power of money and what it does to some people – especially if the sum at stake is a billion Australian dollars.

This is a continuation of the previous post and will be about Macaulay Culkin (and Michael Jackson) again.

The previous part was sad because of the outrageous things done to Macaulay by the media and anonymous gangsters constantly playing games with his life, but this post I hope, will give you a feeling that notwithstanding the enormous pressure Macaulay has to live with he is capable to deal with these people – and they are even a bit wary and apprehensive of what he might be up to.

Macaulay Culkin signs copies of his book ( 2006)

This is the impression I get after reading the reviews of his book “Junior” (the reviews, not the book) which made me marvel at Macaulay’s humor, courage and talent, and also gave me more proof that he was absolutely honest when he spoke of Michael’s innocence and said to each and everyone that “nothing happened” and there wasn’t even a subject for a discussion here.

The book doesn’t say a single word about Michael Jackson but nevertheless tells us a lot about the innocent nature of their friendship.

It also indirectly – through a comparison with Macaulay’s childhood – conveys the idea what it was like for Michael to have a childhood like the one he had (or didn’t have, to be more precise).

Macaulay Culkin had so much of everything a child shouldn’t have had that now he needs a lot of growing “down” or aging in reverse to correct the imbalance. This phenomenon happens to everyone who missed out on their childhood and were forced to act as adults when all the rest had the luxury of growing up as children. Michael Jackson also went through the same aging-in-reverse process and had even more reasons for a desire to regain his childhood.

The New York Magazine says about Macaulay:

• In a sense, Culkin has aged in reverse. “I have a lot of growing up to do,” he tells me at one point, before correcting himself, “or a lot of growing down. I think that’s probably more appropriate.”

When giving an interview to the “New York Magazine” Macaulay mentioned MJ and asked no one to expect any sensationalism from the book – there are no Michael Jackson references there and “people should get that out of their head right now”.

• This is not a sensational book. There’s no Michael Jackson references at all, so get that out of your head right now.

But if there isn’t a single mention of Michael Jackson in his book how can it tell us so much about Macaulay’s attitude to Michael then? To answer this question we need to have a closer look at the book.

MACAULAY TELLS IT ALL

“Junior” took Macaulay four years to write and was published in 2006 when Macaulay was 26 (he was born in August 1980).

An excerpt from the book was printed by ABCnews and this is where we find a more or less official presentation of it:

The 2006 edition of “Junior”

Culkin is now the author of a new book called “Junior, or Oscar De La Mancha, The Wembling Warrior, and the People I Like the Least. Not A Novel. A written project from the normal, well adjusted and ‘No I don’t have issues with my father!’ mind of … junior (meaning me).”

The book is a collection of vignettes, stream-of-consciousness snippets, and cartoons about a child star who abandoned show business at the height of his career, much like the author.

Culkin made a concerted effort to disassociate himself from the book, in anticipation of the literary community “not exactly embracing me,” he said. “I’m just some punk kid who’s writing a book.”

The book, written in no particular order with no particular structure, grapples with fame and Culkin’s relationship with his father.

“This is so surreal for me, this whole thing, it’s the most intimidating thing I have ever done to kind of just throw it all out there,” said Culkin, who said he had not spoken to his father in 11 years. “This book is really just a series of moments in my life.”

The Amazon introduces the book as follows:

Junior would like to get a few things off his chest. He does not know how to write a book. (Except [maybe] for this one.)

He does not like books with introductions. (So this book has six of them.)

His therapist says he has issues with closure. (Granted, this book has seven endings.)

This is not a novel. (Everything in it is entirely true — except for the large portions that are completely fictional.)

And finally, Junior has no issues with his father. (Nope, really, not a single one.)

In a dizzying kaleidoscope of words and images, actor and writer Macauley Culkin takes readers on a twisted tour to the darkest corners of his fertile imagination. Part memoir, part rant, part comedic tour de force, Junior is full of the hard-won wisdom of Culkin’s quest to come to terms with the awesome pressures of childhood mega-stardom and family dysfunction.

He understands that “having fun and being happy are two totally different things,” yet at the same time he warns, “the end of the world is coming — and I’m going to have unfinished business.” Searingly honest and brain-teasingly inventive,Junior is breathtaking proof that Culkin has found his own utterly original voice.

Having fun and being happy are indeed two totally different things, and this is a very insightful observation one hardly expects from a 20-year old. Reflecting on this idea one also realizes that when Michael and Macaulay had much fun when hanging out together, it was just a substitute for the hollow place left by their unhappy childhood and it couldn’t replace the deep feeling of unhappiness haunting both of them since their early years.

After an intriguing introduction like that one simply can’t help reading some experts from Culkin’s book published by the ABCnews:

THE INTRODUCTION

I want to make one thing clear before we begin: I am not a writer. I couldn’t possibly be a writer. I have written and rewritten the words “Introduction” or “The Introduction” so many times in the past couple of years that I’m convinced I was not born to do this. Writing could not be my calling after the mess I’ve made of all this. This has taken way too long. The whole process of writing this book was so agonizing and ate away at so much of my time that there’s no way I can’t finish now. But at this rate I never will. It took me ten minutes to write this very sentence. I’m no writer. This is not my calling.

Why is it so difficult now? This used to be a comforting thing. Writing this book was fun. It made me feel better. I’m not comfortable right now. I’ve never felt comfortable explaining the way that I am. This (the newest in a long line of introductions) is already a failure and I’ve barely begun. Here I am, only on the second paragraph, and I already feel like I’m blowing it.

<>If I wanted to be all David Copperfield about it, I could say I began this project more than two decades ago on a hot summer day in a New York City hospital, but the truth is I only became aware of it actually becoming a book in early January of 2001. It is now crawling to the end of 2005 with the completion of this endeavor nowhere in sight. So much of it was written so long ago that I may have lost sight of what it meant, not only to the reader, but to me as well. Perhaps that is why I have found it so difficult to introduce this part of myself to the rest of the world, because I don’t know what it means to me anymore.

So much has changed since I first sat down and began to write this book. I’ve changed. I got arrested recently and to be quite honest with you it wasn’t as much fun as I thought it would be. I got a new dog and I named her Audrey. I found a girl (a real girl) that I’m in love with, and if you can believe it, she loves me back.

I’m looking at her right now, in fact. She bought me a new computer and on the desktop there’s this picture of her on the beach. She and I and a bunch of our friends went to Hawaii recently. I had never been there before and I enjoyed myself very much. We had a house right on the beach. A couple of days into it, while sitting in the shade nursing my new sunburn, she decided to try surfing for the first time. And needless to say it was quite a funny sight. If you’ve never seen someone take their first surfing lesson before, then drop this book and everything else you’re doing immediately and arrange it. It’s well worth it. On one of her many tumbles into the ocean a friend of ours must have snapped a picture of her. Her butt is on the board as she’s washing ashore and she has this smile on her face. It looks like you’ve just surprised a five-year-old with a truck full of candy. I’m talking ear to ear. Every time I turn on my computer and I see this picture it makes me happy. I know how lucky I am to have someone that makes me feel that way, believe me. I’m lucky to have her.

My point is I didn’t have her or that picture when I started making this book. (I may have had other pictures, but that’s a different book altogether.) I didn’t have a lot of things I do today. I was just some twenty-year-old punk kid who thought he could just whip out some book when I started writing this. Now I’m a twenty-four-year-old accused felon with a dog that shits all over my house and a girlfriend that can’t surf. I can’t account for that person or what he wrote four years ago. I can’t remember his intentions.

So I’ve decided (just now in fact) that I’m going to disassociate myself from this book completely. I think it’s the right thing to do. Too many of the people around me are scared of it, and rightfully so. I’ve put my words in a position to be easily misinterpreted and used against me. So from now on this is not my book. Understood?

Maybe some visual aids will help us both. This is me. And this is my book. Get it?

<> See how I got myself off the hook? A real writer wouldn’t have done that. I am not a writer. I am a fraud, and you can quote me on that. I can read the headlines now. “Young man uses connections to get book published.” The reviews nearly write themselves. In fact, I wouldn’t be very surprised if these last couple of sentences are the most quoted of any other. I’m a sham, a fraud, and a failure all at the same time. And this introduction proves it.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1718193&page=1&singlePage=true

The start was impressive. The rest of the book more or less tells Macaulay’s life story which, according to the New York Magazine “continually circles back to a single subject: Junior’s relationship with his father, a figure who has much in common with Kit Culkin”:

Just glossing over Culkin’s coming-of-age is psychologically exhausting: Raised with six siblings in a one-bedroom on Second Avenue and 94th Street, he started scoring choice roles at age 8 and was a millionaire by 10, but his rapid ascent seemed less adorable and precocious the more people learned about his home life. His father, Kit, notoriously ruled the family—“his kingdom,” says Culkin—by humiliation and physical abuse, eventually leaving the household in 1995. That’s when his mother, Patricia, filed a custody suit, igniting a bitter public battle with Kit, and Culkin had his parents legally blocked from controlling his $17 million fortune, a move that forever estranged him from his father, who today Culkin “thinks” lives in Arizona. “I learned how to read court papers at 14,” he says, inadvertently quoting his alter ego, Junior.

For all its tangents, the book continually circles back to a single subject: Junior’s relationship with his father, a figure who has much in common with Kit Culkin.

http://nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/16211/

Yes, Macaulay’s tribulations are indeed psychologically exhausting to even enumerate, but why don’t the same people realize that Michael Jackson had much, much more of it and if Macaulay’s childhood was exhausting, then Michael’s childhood should be considered a nearly lethal experience?

How can child stars who had to provide for their families since age 5 compare with ordinary people whose biggest job at that tender age was to make sand castles in a sand box? They absolutely can’t, so everyone who constantly wonders about MJ’s behavior (why this, why that), for example, should be first reminded of this fundamental difference, and it is only from this premise that any discussion can start at all.

And the pains of Macaulay Culkin’s childhood and coming-of-age are a perfect example of what it’s like to enjoy a mega-stardom, be the family’s breadwinner as a child and have a hideous father at that.

THE REVIEWS

When the book was published in 2006 the editorial reviews were spitting with rage and indignation while grudgingly admitting its unusual allure:

Publishers Weekly: This self-indulgently infantile book is a novel in only the loosest sense: it looks and reads more like a book-length zine. Amid quizzes, comics, poetry, journal entries, lists and bits of narrative, child star Culkin, through the persona of Junior, tackles the emotional fallout from his years struggling under the parenting-and, inseparably, the career management-of an abusive father. Early on, Junior notes that he’s “not a writer,” and few readers will argue. But as a calculated piece of celebrity implosion, the book is weirdly compelling. Passages dealing directly with the father are uniformly powerful: smart and tragic. Unfortunately, this rich central conflict gets buried beneath interminable bellyaching over the writing process, half-baked philosophical musing and go-nowhere overtures to a woman who no longer loves him.

Kirkus Reviews: With this audaciously empty mishmash of poems, letters, comics, etc., former child star Culkin (of Home Alone fame) has managed to lower the already low bar set for celebrity fiction. Culkin’s debut kicks off with a five-question pop quiz meant to weed out any readers not quite up to snuff. Those who fail the quiz, Culkin writes, will not be allowed to go on. Reader, if you know what’s good for you, you will fail the quiz. The story, insofar as one exists, concerns a child star named Monkey-Monkey Boy and a guy, Junior, with no end of father issues. (People magazine readers will recognize autobiographical elements.) All the usual typographical tricks-font-size changes, phrases crossed out, blank pages helpfully labeled “blank”- are brought out in a rather unsuccessful attempt to disguise the basic pointlessness of the exercise.

School Library Journal: This book consists of disjointed paragraphs, childish drawings, serious father issues, and a wide variety of page layouts. Calling this title fiction may be a bit of a stretch. Now 25, the author may or may not have written this as part of a therapeutic process. (He drops hints that he has.) His emotions are certainly laid bare. Culkin touches on such issues as how you become who you are, how every little thing that happens to you matters, and how you make the transition to adulthood.

Salon: The book itself reads more like the kind of free-associating writing exercise a therapist would prescribe to a patient than an actual story, and in fact, our narrator Culkin/Junior reveals that a therapist once suggested list-making to deal with “abandonment issues”. A good portion of the book is devoted to lists — things he hates, things he loves, things that are important to him, things he regrets and things he wants to do before he dies. Almost every list begins with the entry “Dad,” and had Culkin gone with this impulse — exploring the damaging impact his father had on his life — he may have produced a juicy portrait of family life under the weight of celebrity. Unfortunately, Culkin barely skims the surface of his family drama and leaves us instead with kindergarten sketches about eating poop. <>The passages he dedicates to the senior Culkin (“DAD” — Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are moving — alarmingly so — if for no other reason than that the brutal humiliation young Culkin suffered under his father seems to be as painfully vivid for Culkin today as it must have been then.

The above can be summarized as follows:

At age 20 when Macaulay started writing the book he “had no end of father issues” and it was “a rich central conflict” for him. And he wrote about it in a powerful way, making the narration smart and tragic. And he laid his emotions bare and hinted that writing it was part of a therapeutic process for him. He also described his painful process of becoming an adult and how every little thing that happened to him mattered in this transition.

Wait a minute, so Macaulay dwelt on all his painful issues up to “every little thing that mattered to him”…. and we still didn’t hear a word of any alleged abuse by MJ, except for the abuse and brutal humiliation done by his father of course?

No, there wasn’t a single word about it, and the reason for it is because the alleged “abuse” simply never happened.

In other words what really mattered to Macaulay he did write about, but what didn’t matter or didn’t happen to him, he never even mentioned or dropped a hint at. And it is this telling omission of Michael Jackson which is the only important factor here – and not even what Macaulay said or didn’t say about MJ.

The 2007 edition by Miramax books

The readers’ reviews were even more helpful to see what’s what.

The reviews were many as no reader seemed to be left indifferent by what he read, and they divided into those who were shocked by Macaulay’s style and loved it, and those who were shocked by his style and hated it (the former number is much smaller).

Here are the typical comments:

• Humorous, touching and surprisingly entertaining. When I first saw the book, I thought “Macaulay Culkin can write? You must have been kidding me”. Back after opening the book I find myself unable to take my eyes off of it ( I finished the first 50 pages at Barnes and Nobles and decided that I have to buy it!) Culkin takes us into places where its half fictional and half truth, the book is full of humor yet somehow behind everyone of those jokes is a painful story behind it….I felt as if he was talking to me the entire time throughout the novel, and by the time it ends I felt as if I know who this person is. Despite what critic said, Junior is probaby the best book I have ever read.

• An ocean wave of a feeling, joy, combined with a brilliant sense of humor, “Junior” represents a “sketch of hidden human emotions”. Macaulay Culkin has a skill of writing what he wants to show the reader in 3 sentences. The easy-going style of writing with new energy and a shining light of care between paragraphs “Junior” is a light journey on footsteps of love and understanding of what it’s like growing up, and facing what one needs to face with to grow higher.

• Those who already know of Culkin’s difficult relationship with his father will have a field day with this book. He definitely touches on that subject, as well as how to NOT be his father, to be a different person.

• By the end of the book I feel Junior’s story is done. Culkin’s dark past has been removed from him. He has freed himself from any anger and sadness using a very unique voice. I’ve never read a book quite like this.

• Unabashingly witty. Surprising piece of work as Macaulay proves to be a TALENTED writer. Despite the humor in the book there is an underlying honesty that makes the reader believe and relate to the vulnerability of the character/s.

• Horrible. He has a lot of unresolved daddy issues. He needs to go to therapy, not bash on his father to the whole world. It would be different if it was a memoir or autobiography, but it’s not.

• One of the best books I’ve ever read… I have always been a Culkin fan. He is very intelligent. This comes out in the book. It jumps back and forth and keeps you wondering what funny yet insightful things he has to say. It’s a quick read, but by the end you really wish it wasn’t over. You can really relate to his struggles … especially because he tells them in such a comical way!

• Worth Every Minute. I think it teaches all of us that celebrities, “Child Star’s” are just like everyone else. They fall in love, get arrested, pick up bad habits, and watch too much T.V. I found this book so refreshing and honest. I feel like a stronger person for having read this book.

• Different. Unique. Inspiring. Those are the three words I use to describe Junior. In writing Junior, Culkin truly opened himself up to readers and into his life of chaos, loneliness, and tribulation, but I believe it made him a stronger and better person. I admire him much more now than I ever could have before, because in him many of us have gone through the same issues of being lost, being abused, and somewhat left out of living normal lives.

• My problem with this book wasn’t its lack of purpose (though I’m sure it was cathartic–and cheaper than therapy–for Culkin to get this stuff of his chest). My problem is that I think this book is Macauley Culkin’s way of laughing at those who thought to purchase this drivel in the belief that it might actually have something useful to say.

• It’s a glimpse into Culkin’s heart, mind, and soul: his true self. To me, that’s appealing.

• Original and captivating. Four stars for originality and honesty. OK, this is not literature, but I didn’t expect it to be. This is like a performance piece, only you’re reading it and not sitting in an art gallery or alternative theater.

• Culkin is a thoughtful writer who opens his art with a quiz to help the reader decide if he or she should continue reading past page vii. For anyone who passes the opening questionnaire, or who fails and wants to satiate their curiosity about the latest celebrity entry in the fiction/memoir/rant/tell-all genre, Junior is a whirlwind of a ride.  Culkin treats the reader to unfinished stories from his past, to rants about his Dad, to attempts to address his Dad, to cartoons, to lists of facts who never knew you needed to know, to his self-image, to lists of likes and dislikes, to telegrams, and to an enlightening expose of the myths we were all told when we were younger.

• Unpredictably great. It accurately reflects the way lives can be misleading, difficult, addictive, yet oh so wonderful at the same time. It’s that contradiction that makes the book so great. Culkin depicts a miserable, unhappy character throughout the book, yet somehow it gives you this amazing feeling of hope for the possibility of something better and something happy. All and all, I would say this is one of my new favorite books.

• It is utterly meaningless & totally ridiculous. & I love it. Every page is stranger than the last one. It’s hilarious & heartbreaking.

• The book is very sad, illuminating the misguided decisions and priorities that are endemic to Hollywood and the lives of child actors and their families. It does read a bit like a school paper, and like a personal victory in achieving deadlines, but I’m thankful for the generosity with his insight. There is definitely some great off-kilter humor throughout.

• Honest, amusing, insightful look into a unique talent. This book is a look into the mind of Macaulay Culkin and his uniqueness shines. It is a mixture of poems, short stories, letters, and thoughts. Through his writings, you can clearly see that he has a good character. He is a good person with a deep soul, and it appears his character is shaped by his difficult trials. The accounts of his father are honest and painful, and the wisdom gained from them is evident.

• Touching, creative and brave. I thought Macauley Culkin described with humor and creativity, the internal world of boy/man dealing with the strangeness of his fame, his painful relationship with his father and his struggle to differentiate himself. It was playful, sad, and honest. I commend him.

http://www.amazon.com/Junior-Macaulay-Culkin/dp/B0035G037Q

Wow, that was very helpful indeed. The wave of emotions from readers mirrored the intensity of emotion Macaulay himself put into the book and the degree of honesty with which he opened himself up to his readers.

Everyone notes that he “definitely touches” on the subject of his father and the story seems to be a heartbreaking one indeed. The book is surely a catharsis for Macaulay and in the end he seems to free himself from most of his anger and sadness. His struggles also make readers stronger if they follow him to the end of this breaking-free process.

What the editorial reviews didn’t tell us is that Macaulay described all his troubles in a hilarious way and that he has a brilliant sense of humor. And also a talent for writing and a unique voice. Some say that his uniqueness shines throughout the book as he is not simply describing his life of chaos, loneliness and tribulation but is doing it in an utterly comical way.

He also comes out as a good person with a deep soul and as a man who gained much wisdom as a result of his struggles.

And all readers notice that the feature underlying the whole story is Macaulay’s honesty, and this is the most important point for us again.

It once again proves that when Macaulay has something painful to get off his chest he will work it out with a degree of honesty totally amazing for his readers.  And when he doesn’t mention someone (Michael Jackson for example), it means that this person didn’t constitute a single problem for him – though mentioning him would have surely attracted millions of more readers to his book.

This approach makes Macaulay the exact opposite of all those BS writers about Michael Jackson who strive for sensationalism and invent things about MJ for better sales. Macaulay deals only with what really happened, and was really an issue for him. And Michael wasn’t an issue, so hence not a word about him in his book.

Macaulay Culkin IS the Kevin McCallister who can rip his offender into shreds IF THE OFFENSE REALLY HAPPENED

Macaulay’s honesty also means that  if there had been any truth in those allegations, Macaulay would have made no bones about it and at the very least would have dropped a thousand hints that would have told the whole story without actually telling it.

Macaulay has a talent and could have done it in a unique way and style typical of his character Kevin McCallister – that inimitable little boy from Home Alone movies who managed to cope with the bandits, defend his home and win in a hard fight against evil.

And if this character had had some “sex abuse” memories he would have done away with his offender like no other, turning him into a subject of ridicule and ripping him into shreds.

IT TAKES ONE WORD TO DO AWAY WITH THE OFFENDER

So if Macaulay had had any issues with Michael Jackson, he wouldn’t have kept his mouth shut and would have expressed his feelings with the candor few people are capable of – and if you are still in doubt here is an example for you from his book.

It shows that Macaulay is capable to deal with his offender by means of one word only.

The episode is mentioned by Sarah Goldstein who wrote her review for the Salon. She says that the book contains a letter written by Macaulay to his father. The letter starts with “Dear Dad” and then goes on with one word covering the whole page (other reviews say that the letter is actually two pages):

“After years of tabloid drama about the Culkins, the story offers an unsympathetic, bare-bones view into the hell it must have been living as a child in that family. Less successful are the moments where Culkin writes about how hard it is to articulate his feelings toward his father, as in the following:

Dear Dad, Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck [ad nauseam, fills whole page] http://www.salon.com/2006/03/23/culkin/

Sorry for the word but this is a quotation to which any post is entitled to.

See what I am talking about? As one reader put it Macaulay has a skill of writing that can exhaust the subject in three sentences. However now we know that in some cases even one word would be enough for Macaulay to do away with the problem or at least convey to his readers the enormity and hideousness of it, and why it is impossible to handle it in more conventional ways.

SEEKING FOR NORMALCY

Hopefully now you understand that though Macaulay didn’t say a single word about Michael in his book, this telling omission is declaring to the whole world that Macaulay had no issues with MJ whatsoever. And if he had had them, Macaulay would have never hesitated to “work it out” in full view of the public and crash the one who hurt him in a humorous but unrelenting way.

The truth of the matter is that Michael was innocent, as Macaulay always said it, and his relations with Michael were normal and trouble-free, and there was nothing in their friendship that demanded to be taken off his chest.

Michael was a zone of comfort for young Macaulay,  same as for other children –  for example, Corey Feldman who had been sexually abused by Hollywood monsters and to everyone’s surprise said that the only safe place he knew was with Michael Jackson:

Corey Feldman was also one of MJ’s child friends. He said Michael brought him back to his innocence

‘Slowly, over a period of many years I would begin to realize that many of the people I had surrounded myself with were monsters,’ he writes.

Interestingly, the only safe place he knew was with Michael Jackson.

‘I was shattered, disgusted, devastated. I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson,‘ he recalls. The pair had been introduced by Spielberg.

‘Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place. Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence. When I was with Michael, it was like being 10 years old again.‘

He insists in the book that Jackson never abused him or tried to touch him sexually.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483502/Corey-Feldman-told-cops-molested-named-abusers-did-nothing.html#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

These troubled children sought Michael for normalcy and it was their association with him that allowed them to more or less bring their childhood back to them.

However Macaulay wouldn’t be a top honest guy if he didn’t admit that all of it wasn’t plain sailing with Michael during the many years of their friendship – Michael’s troubles added to his own pack of problems, and he was clearly upset and worried about MJ and even thought Michael to blame for ever bringing into his life people who didn’t deserve it in the least (look at Bashir and Arvizos, for example).

He also openly said that he wasn’t happy to be involved in the trial but at the same time emphatically testified about Michael’s innocence. He always wanted to say to MJ that “he should have known better, to even have those kind of people in his life”, but evidently never said it sparing his feelings and knowing the “big, fat mess” those people landed him in.

In short he behaved like a friend would and the one that really wishes him well.

It is surprising but in his reflections about Michael Macaulay sounded like the older of the two. He advised Michael how to cope with his problems and was critical of some of his ways. But on the other hand Macaulay is critical of himself too, and strange enough, this criticism shows the genuineness of his care for Michael much more than any formal and feigned admiration would.

Macaulay said of his book and Michael Jackson:

[of the book]: “Yeah, it’s the worst possible thing I could have done for myself,” he says flippantly. “Now I have to stand by it. I can’t just throw it out there and act like I’m ashamed of it.” He mulls this over. “I’m willing to face whatever comes with this, from critics, people trying to make it more sensational than it is. This is not a sensational book. There’s no Michael Jackson references at all, so get that out of your head right now.”

That’s easier said than done, given that it was less than a year ago that Culkin testified for the defense during the pop star’s molestation trial. “You know, I didn’t want to get involved with the whole thing,” he says. “It was a big, fat mess. I almost wanted to say to him, ‘You should have known better, just to even have those kind of people in your life.’ ”

He thinks for a moment and continues. “I don’t know how it happened, but somehow I’ve become the resident Michael Jackson expert. We’re close, he’s a good friend of mine, we definitely have a connection that most people don’t have, but he’s a friend that I talk to once a year.”

When they talk, Culkin always encourages Jackson to get back to music. “You know, call up the Roots, call up the Beastie Boys, call up Björk.” The last time they spoke was a few months after the trial: “He sounded better . . .” He trails off, distracted.

Michael Jackson and Macaulay Culkin in 2001

“One of the things that I always thought is that I could have turned out that way. I’m a fairly sheltered person, but I could have just put up a fortress around myself, bought a big chunk of land somewhere, and said, ‘Fuck all y’all!’

But I made a decision when I was 14 that I was going to live life, where I think he made the opposite decision. It’s a cool little world that he has, but at the same time, it’s become a little more distant from reality.”

http://nymag.com/arts/books/reviews/16211/

At age 25 Macaulay Culkin was already as mature and insightful as a wise old man, and when you read him you can immediately recognize that what he says about Michael is real stuff (and not fictional one like those liars’ hollow stories).

It provides us with a rich material for reflection on the characters of both Macaulay and Michael, their different ways of coping with similar problems and a long and winding road a true friendship often takes.

You know, if there were anyone I would like to write a book about Michael Jackson it would be Macaulay Culkin.

~

S U P P L E M E N T

EXCERPTS FROM MACAULAY’S TESTIMONY AT THE 2005 TRIAL

Now that we realize Macaulay’s exceptional gift for a sincere and truthful narration it is probably time to revisit the 2005 trial again and recall what he said about Michael.

Below you will find only some experts from Macaulay’s testimony, though the whole text is actually worth quoting as all of it is absolutely great in terms of honesty and ease. The truth is indeed easy to tell.

On “molestation” issues Macaulay said:

Q. You heard about some of the allegations about whether or not Mr. Jackson improperly ever touched you, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever molest you?

A. Never.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever improperly touch you?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in any sexual type of way?

A. No.

Q. Has he ever touched you in any offensive way?

A. No.

Q. What do you think of these allegations?

A. I think they’re absolutely ridiculous.

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jackson do anything improper with him? [Brett Barnes]

A. No, I’ve never seen him do anything improper with anybody.

On how he learned that he was allegedly “improperly touched”:

Q. When did you first learn that these prosecutors were claiming that you were improperly touched?

A. When did I first learn that?

Q. Yes.

A. I — somebody called me up and said, “You should probably check out CNN, because they’re saying something about you”.

Q. And did you check it out?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what did you learn?

A. I learned that it was a former cook had done something to me, and there was something about a maid or something like that. It was just one of those things where I just couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or — let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me. And at the same time it was amazing to me that they — that nobody approached me and even asked me whether or not the allegations were true. They kind of just were — threw it out there just like — they didn’t even — they didn’t even double-check it basically. I mean, even if they assumed that they knew the answer, what got me was that they didn’t even ask.

Q. Now, are you saying these prosecutors never tried to reach you to ask you your position on this?

A. No, they didn’t.

Q. Do you know if any police officer from Santa Barbara has ever tried to call you to see what the truth is?

A. No.

On his younger brother who was always with him and on “sharing a bed”:

Q. And have you and your family stayed in that room?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times, do you think?

A. Handful of times.

Q. How about your brother?

A. Whenever I was there, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was.

Q. Prior to staying in Bermuda, had you ever spent the night alone with Mr. Jackson?

A. How do you mean “spend the night”?

Q. Did you ever share a bed with Mr. Jackson prior to going to Bermuda?

A. Yeah, I mean, I’d fallen asleep in the same bed as him.

Q. Did you ever do that, fall asleep in the same bed as Mr. Jackson prior to going to Bermuda where none of your brothers or sisters were present?

A. It’s possible. But like I said, usually my brother was tagging along with me. But I fell asleep basically everywhere in that ranch, or anywhere else when I was hanging out with him. I would just flop down on the floor half the time.

On his family always staying with him at Neverland except one occasion when the family came one or two days later:

Q. You never once went to Neverland by yourself?

A. Like I said, I think I showed up — I showed up there once, and it was like a day or two and then my family met me there.

Q. But there were occasions when you went to Neverland without your siblings and without your

parents; is that right?

A. I think I took one trip there where I arrived there before my family did, for like a day or two, and then they showed up.

Q. Up until the age of, say, 14, are you telling us every time you went to Neverland you were with your parents and your siblings?

A. In some kind of combination of siblings and parents, yes.

Q. You never once went to Neverland by yourself?

A. Like I said, I think I showed up — I showed up there once, and it was like a day or two and then my family met me there.

On the “bed issues”:

Q. All those occasions did you sleep in his room?

A. It would be — I slept in his room about as often as I fell asleep anywhere. Like, I fell asleep — I would flop down – we’d fall asleep in the movie theater. He has beds in the movie theater. I’d flop down and fall asleep there. I’ve fallen asleep in the video game machines before. I mean, I’ve — I would go and play there basically until I’d just run myself out, and I would just flop down wherever I needed to.

Q. And you’d be pretty exhausted and go fast asleep; is that right?

A. Yeah, I mean, that would happen. I’d wear myself out and fall asleep, just like any kid would.

Q. Did you ever have a conversation with your mother about whether or not it’s appropriate for a 10-year-old boy to be sharing a bed with a 35-year-old man on a regular basis?

A. No. We didn’t share a bed on a regular basis.

On hanging out in MJ’s Hideout:

Q. And what have you done with Michael Jackson in Los Angeles?

A. Same kind of thing. We used to hang out. He had an apartment there that was actually in the city, so we’d go visit there. Just kind of – it was a little more convenient, and it was smaller. It wasn’t as, you know, far away. It wasn’t the daunting three-hour drive, you know. When you’re ten years old, that’s an awfully long drive to get out there. So sometimes when he was in the city, we would just hang out at his apartment.

On why he wasn’t at Neverland between age 14-17 and then came again (the 14-17 period was when he was deeply involved in legal issues with his father).

Q. How old were you when you stopped sleeping in bed with Michael Jackson?

A. Well, like I said, I stopped going there just because I had really — I had never really found myself going to Los Angeles or anything like that. So I didn’t really come back again until I was about 17.

Q. The question was, when did you stop sleeping —

A. I know. I’m getting there. And so when I got — when I started coming back again, I found myself just not sleeping in bed. And I’ve always kind of fell asleep in the guest units ever since then.

Q. Why didn’t you stay with Mr. Jackson in his room?

A. Because I enjoyed my privacy a little bit more.

Q. All right. So is it safe to say that up until and through your 13th year, you stayed with Mr. Jackson in his room?

A. On occasion — On occasion I’d fall asleep there or wherever. It wasn’t really like a thing to, like, ”Let’s go to sleep in a particular place.” On occasion I’d end up falling asleep there. I’d fall asleep anywhere.

On his longest stay at Neverland taking place when he was 20:

Q. What’s the longest you ever stayed at Neverland?

A. When I was — I think I was 20, I stayed there for about, I don’t know, 10 days, 14 days. And that was the longest trip I’d ever taken there.

Q. At age 20?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Well, can I assume that at age 20 you were not sleeping with Michael Jackson?

A. I don’t think he was there on that trip. I kind of just said, “I need to relax. Is it okay if I use your house?” And he said, “Sure.” I was just staying there by myself, and I’d just stay in the guest units, and it was just — it was just that. He wasn’t even there.

Q. But even at age 20, you would not have been sleeping with him in any event; is that correct?

A. Probably not. Like I said, you know, as you get older, you start enjoying your privacy and you start getting on more of a schedule. And I was falling asleep on — I had more of a schedule going. I was basically going out there to write and things like that, and to relax.

On the fantastic version that he was molested while he was asleep:

Q. Your answer more accurately is he never molested you, to your knowledge, while you were

awake; is that true?

A. As far as I know, he’s never molested me.

Q. While you were asleep as a nine-year-old kid who had run himself ragged, you wouldn’t know what happened while you were asleep, right?

A. I find that unlikely.

Q. Well, but you just told us that sometimes you’d be so exhausted after a day of playing you’d fall asleep on a machine.

A. Yeah, but I think I’d realize if something like that was happening to me.

Q. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions about maybe being molested when you were asleep and not knowing about it. And you said words to the effect, you would have known about it. What did you mean?

A. I think I would have realized if something like that was happening to me, whether I was asleep or not.

On other kids at Neverland and sleeping arrangements there:

Q. Did you ever spend a night in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom with another boy, not your brothers?

A. Sometimes. Sometimes, like I said, there would be kids there. They’d be introduced as cousins or something like that. And they would hang with us, just as much as anyone else would.

Q. Can you describe any of them?

A. They were kids. They were — you know, some of them had dark hair. Darker skin, that kind of thing. Whenever I was around, sometimes there would be other kids around.And, you know, it wasn’t like we all, like, “Oh, it’s time to go to bed. Let’s huddle in.” Its like, you know, you’re chatting in bed, and the next thing you know you’re asleep.

A. On occasion, the other kids there that — like I said, some of them were introduced — like, I was introduced to as, like, cousins or family friends and stuff like that. And they’d bring their kids there, and then — same as me. They would — they would play with me, and we’d fall asleep anywhere, sometimes his bedroom, sometimes in the theater, sometimes anywhere.

On the special fun of the place:

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever talk to you about other boys who shared his bed with you?

A. Not really, no. Like I said, it was a casual thing, so it wasn’t necessarily something that was, like, talked about. I’d fall asleep there, I’d fall asleep anywhere. People just kind of fell asleep wherever they wanted to. That was kind of the fun of the place, was that there was no rigid rules about when or where you should fall asleep.

On the open-door policy at Neverland:

Q. Did you ever get the feeling that your family was being excluded from anything you did at Neverland?

A. Absolutely not….It was a real open-door policy just with the entire ranch.

Q. That applied to your family as well as you?

A. Yes, everyone.

Q. And you talked about an open-door policy in his room.

A. Uh-huh.

Q. Could you please explain what you mean?

A. Well, no doors were ever really locked in his place. It wasn’t like — you know, you could always — you could always come — he always told me, “You can just come to the ranch whenever you want.” And every door was open, and you can go anywhere you wanted, and that included the bedroom.

Q. And did you feel that adults were free to come in and out as well as children?

A. Absolutely. He had a lot of memorabilia and things like that in his closets, and so people liked to look at that. It was one of those stops on the tour when we first showed up. It’s like, “Come to the bedroom. Come see what’s in the closet,” those kind of things. Like I said, it’s almost a part of the tour.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson allow other children and families into his room?

A. Yeah. It was, you know, whenever – it was — like I said, it was an open-door policy, not only for me but for whatever other families were there.

Q. Did you ever think Mr. Jackson was somehow trying to exclude your family from his room?

A. Absolutely not. It was a real open-door policy just with the entire ranch.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson allow other children and families into his room?

A. Yeah. It was, you know, whenever – it was — like I said, it was an open-door policy, not only for me but for whatever other families were there.

On Michael allowing people to rake through his personal things in the closet:

Q. You’re telling us that Mr. Jackson had no problem with people going through the closets in his bedroom?

A. Yeah, it was one of those things. I mean, I don’t necessarily think it was a good thing to rifle through everything, but it was —

Q. But people did?

A. He had a large closet. Like I said, he had a lot of his old rhinestone jackets and things like that in there.

Q. People did that?

A. People would go in there, yes.

Q. Sometimes people he didn’t even know?

A. Well, I can’t really speak of whether or not they knew him or not. I assumed if they were there, they knew him.

Q. Certainly people who were in his room with his permission had his permission as well to go through the closets and look at the memorabilia in

his closets; is that right?

A. Sure. Like I said, it was another stop on the tour. It was another kind of thing.

Q. It would be nothing unusual at all about somebody who was in his room with his permission to go through his closets and his drawers?

A. Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say the drawers. But it was kind of more — one of the closets was a lot — definitely a lot more for display than it was for, you know, actual clothing.

On Michael’s generosity:

Q. Did he give gifts to your parents?

A. I think so. But I honestly don’t remember. This is a while ago. But he was — he was very generous. He always gave gifts to everybody.

Q. Now, in response to the prosecutor’s questions you talked about Michael Jackson being generous. What do you mean?

A. He was just very open and giving with not only his money and what he — you know, but like even just what he had. I remember a friend of mine had, like, you know — no, it was my brother. He liked a box, a certain box. It was this wooden box. “Is it all right if I have it?” And he didn’t give it a second thought. It’s that kind of thing. He just kind of – he’ll let me go there, go to Neverland anytime I want. And he will let you use whatever you need to, and go wherever you need to go. And he’s just a very good friend.

Q. The prosecutor talked about Mr. Jackson buying you a watch. Do you remember anything unusual about his buying you a gift?

A. Not at all. No, it was one of those things where, like, yeah, we’d go shopping or something like that. I thought it was a very nice gift. But at the same time, it was very sweet. And he actually had it engraved for me, it was like, you know, “From Michael Jackson,” you know, “1991,” or “1992,” or something like that. I haven’t seen it in a bunch of years, but I know I have it somewhere in a box.

On shopping for toys and the reason they shopped at night:

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever take you on shopping sprees?

A. Yeah, we’d go shopping.

Q. Where?

A. We used to do this thing where in the middle of the night — not necessarily the middle of the night, but around, like, after the stores had closed, he would arrange for us to go to Toys-R-Us. And sometimes he wouldn’t even arrange it. We would go there, and he’d literally knock on the door, and the janitor would drop his mop, and go, “What the heck?” and let us in. And then they’d — you know, we’d go shopping basically at Toys-R-Us when the store was totally empty, because it’s the only time that he could really go shopping like that.

Q. How many times did he do that with you?

A. Oh, gosh. Like two times, three times –

Q. Okay. Did you feel as if there was some ulterior motive or purpose behind Mr. Jackson taking you to toy stores to shop?

A. No, it was just to buy toys. Usually to load up on, you know, water guns or something like that. It was just one of those things where – it was just one of the fun things that you could do while you were hanging out with Michael.

On shopping with Michael when he was 17-18 years old:

Q. What — what other shopping sprees did he take you on, if you remember?

A. I think one time when I was — I mean, besides the Toys-R-Us kind of things, that we just kind of show up in the middle of the night and scare the janitor, I think when I was about 17 or 18, he was in town with Prince, and we went to — he closed down FAO Schwartz, like, late at night, and we kind of showed up there and shopped a little there. And anywhere he shops, they kind of have to close it down for him, or we have to go late at night, just because — it just kind of comes with the territory. So I think we also went CD or DVD shopping when we were in London. He was just like, “We’re going to go shopping. Do you want to tag along?” And I went, “Sure.”

On their visits to the movie theatres:

Q. Have you seen Michael Jackson outside of Neverland?

A. Yes.

Q. Where have you seen him?

A. Whenever. I’d be staying at a hotel and he’d come and pick me and my brothers up, and we’d sneak into a movie theater like in the middle of the night — in the middle of, like, you know, a movie, because that was the only way you could really see an actual movie in an actual movie theater with him. Just a number of occasions.

On Michael being like them, children, even when he became a father:

Q. Did you ever see Mr. Jackson as very childlike himself?

A. He was very childlike, yes.

Q. What do you mean?

A. He liked doing the things that we liked to do. He liked playing the arcade games. Though he wasn’t as good as us, usually, but, you know, he still enjoyed doing it, because, you know, it was one of those things. And he enjoyed the same kind of movies. He liked running around. We used to play tag. I mean, it’s that kind of thing. He played with us, you know, the same kind of way I played with any of my friends my age.

A. And he was a nice guy. I remember he laughed because I referred to all the Ninja Turtles by their first names, and things like that.

Q. You said he was childlike. Are you referring to his behavior back when you were 10 and 11 years old?

A. Yeah. I mean, even now, he’s more of a father now. It’s kind of fun for me to see that. But at the same time, yeah, I mean, he still has childlike qualities.

On Michael understanding Macaulay:

Q. You said that Michael Jackson understood you. What did you mean?

A. Well, because of circumstances, like with my career, I mean, one day I was essentially a normal kid who happened to be an actor, and the next thing I know, I’m just this thing where people are hiding in the bushes and trying to take your picture. And just — people are kind of out to profit from you, or next thing you know you have a million acquaintances and no more friends anymore. It was like that. And he understood that. That was one of the first things we talked about, was don’t – “I get it. I understand what you’re going through. I understand the same thing.” You know, “If you want to talk about anything or if you ever want to” — you know, I could learn from his knowledge, basically, of where he came from. And you couldn’t really find a whole lot of people, especially when you’re nine years old, put in these circumstances that nobody else — you can’t really talk to anybody about this kind of stuff. And he understood it, and it was — it was a comforting thing.

A.  … it was definitely something where we understood each other early on.

Q. Even when you were nine years old?

A. Because of circumstances, yes.

Q. Do you still talk to Mr. Jackson about the unique way child actors develop and live?

A. On occasion. It’s not like it’s, you know, a child performer self-help group or something like that. But at the same time, it was — we still talk about it, because we’re a part of a unique group of people. And so we have a unique understanding of one another. And when it goes to any person who is a child performer, I kind of keep an eye out for them, and I — because I get it. And it goes the same for anyone who, you know, was or, you know, is a child performer. I think you kind of keep an eye out. You have an understanding of them.

On long telephone conversations with MJ (imagine yourself being confined to your hotel room for months):

Q. After you first met Mr. Jackson, did he telephone you a lot?

A. We talked on the phone a good amount.

Q. And sometimes those telephone calls would go two or three hours, wouldn’t they?

A. Sometimes. I guess. Yeah.

Q. Sometimes those telephone calls were in the middle of the night, weren’t they?

A. Not really. I was in school. But sometimes it would be in the later side.

Q. How many times do you think you’ve spoken to him on the phone?

A. I couldn’t really count. Couldn’t say. Over 100 times probably.

On Michael never pressuring Macaulay:

Q. And the prosecutor asked you questions about whether you felt Mr. Jackson was somehow pressuring you somehow to do something improper. Did you ever feel as if Mr. Jackson was pressuring you to do anything?

A. He never pressured me to do anything at all. Just — he was just my friend. He never really pressured me to do anything. Not even go to sleep at the right time or eat my vegetables, you know.

On why they were like family:

Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor asked you questions about Mr. Jackson referring to you and your family as family. And you said you thought he had done that on occasion, right?

A. Yeah.

Q. And what do you recall about that?

A. Well, we were very close. I know my mother had had contact with my father, had talked to him when I wasn’t talking to him. It was just one of those things where he was a close family friend, like family.

On a call Michael made to Macaulay a couple of weeks or a month before the Jordan Chandler scandal (if it had been “hush money” would he have waited a month for the news to hit the press and would he have informed his friends of this stink bomb? Wasn’t it easier to quietly settle?)

Q. Are you aware of the allegations in 1993?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. In 1993, were you aware of the allegations while they were going on?

A. Michael had called me about a month or so, or maybe a couple of weeks before the allegations hit the press. And he let me know that some people were going to be saying something, and they were absolutely untrue, and, “Don’t worry about it. I just need you to be my friend right now.” And I said, “Absolutely.”

Q. At the time that Mr. Jackson placed that phone call, did you know who Jordan Chandler was?

A. I don’t know. I’m not sure exactly who Jordan Chandler is, so I can’t — I can’t say.

On Michael never discussing the “molestation” issues:

Q. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, you said that in 1993 Mr. Jackson called you and said these allegations were false, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And had you discussed with Mr. Jackson from time to time those false allegations?

A. Not really. It’s not something we necessarily talk about. It’s — its — you know, I think it’s just a painful subject. It was a hard thing for everyone to go through, I mean especially him. It just – it’s a hard subject.

On the door to MJ’s bedroom being NEVER locked:

Q. Can we assume from that your parents never came into the room while you were in bed with

Michael Jackson?

A. That’s not true, no. Sometimes my father would wake us up, because he liked going horseback riding or something like that and, you know, things that I didn’t necessarily enjoy as much as he did, but he would wake me up early in the morning to go horseback riding.

Q. And you would be in bed alone with Michael Jackson?

A. Not always alone, no. And sometimes I wouldn’t be always there. I would be wherever. But I knew they knew that I was in that room, and they knew I fell asleep there.

Q. All right. Is there — was there at the time an alarm on his door going into his bedroom?

A. There was like a walkway kind of thing where if somebody was approaching the door, it would kind of like “ding-dong, ding-dong.”

Q. All right. Do you remember hearing any “ding-dongs, ding-dongs” as your father came into the room?

A. When anyone would approach the room, yeah, you’d hear this kind of — soft kind of alarm, like “ding-dong” kind of thing.

Q. On the occasion that your father came into the room while you were in bed alone with Michael

Jackson, did he say anything to you about that?

A. No.

Q. Did he say anything to Michael Jackson in your presence about your sleeping with him?

A. No. He didn’t really seem to have a problem with it, from what I remember.

Q. And I asked you if he said anything. Did he say anything to Michael Jackson in your presence?

A. Well, what do you mean by “anything”?

Q. Did he say anything to Michael Jackson about him sharing a bed with his ten-year-old son? Did he say anything to Michael Jackson about that in your presence at that time?

A. No, it was a very casual thing. So, no, he never really said anything.

Q. The answer is “No”?

A. No, he never said anything.

Q. Did your mother ever come into the room when you were alone with Michael Jackson in bed?

A. It’s a possibility, yeah.

Q. Do you know if it happened more than once?

A. Yeah. He had a very open-door policy. His bedroom door at that time was never locked. Anyone could walk in.

~

So much for all those tall stories about an elaborate “security system” and something horrible taking place behind “closed doors”. So what if there was a ding-dong sound in the corridor? The bedroom door was never locked – at least when Macaulay and others were in Michael’s house in the early 90s. Anyone could walk in and at any time too. His father would walk into the room early in the morning when everyone in MJ’s room was still asleep and the door was always open.

And if Macaulay Culkin says it, we can be sure that it was really that way. Knowing Macaulay’s honesty and candor it  simply can’t be anything different.

Toni Bowers, Professor fo British literature at Pennsylvania University

This is a repost of an excellent article by Toni Bowers from the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Amazed by the author’s words that some media still say that Michael Jackson “claimed” to have had vitiligo I’ve added to her article two illustrations of what they say.

Toni Bowers is Professor of British Literature at the University of Pennsylvania. She lives in Philadelphia.

Dancing with Michael Jackson

Baltimore and its discontents

May 14th, 2015

Come and see, the moon is shining.
Come and see, the moon is walking.
Come and see, the moon is dancing.

— Ladysmith Black Mambazo

Got a feeling that we’re gonna raise the roof off!
Everybody just get down!

— Michael Jackson

BY NOW, videos of Dimitri Reeves dancing in various parts of Baltimore to the strains of Michael Jackson’s music have been watched millions of times. In the best-known clip, filmed by reporter Shomari Stone, Reeves delights startled spectators when, with “Beat It” blaring out from the curb, he unexpectedly starts floating down a littered street, mimicking Jackson’s jubilant, angry dance moves and bringing caution to an incendiary moment.

Don’t want to see no blood, don’t be a macho man. They’ll kick you, they’ll beat you, they’ll tell you it’s fair, so beat it.

On his Facebook page Reeves asked that viewers of the videos not parse out too minutely the possible significance of the lyrics he chose to dance to — “Beat It,” “Smooth Criminal,” “Will You Be There,” “Black or White,” and others. “I just wanted to dance,” he says. It was a superb instinct. When Reeves turned up the volume and reanimated magical steps from long ago, shared joy became present in the angry, grieving city, and the city responded. Individuals, knots of young men, and eventually, large crowds began jamming alongside Reeves, determination and joy written unmistakably on their faces. A strange, unexpected beauty materializes before our eyes, and we glimpse another Baltimore, very different from the media images — a city finding a way to heal from within.

On the same day as Reeves’s first videotaped dance, I was pacing around an expensive “specialty” grocery in Philadelphia. The muzak must have been buzzing away unnoticed until suddenly there it was: the air filled with an ageless, raucous beat, and “Thriller” came on. In an instant, everyone was moving. The man slicing the meat swayed ever so slightly left and right. The face of the armed guard at the entrance (the only person of color in the store) softened; he began to nod. A woman near me paused and gazed away. Feet tapped. For a mysterious instant, something that we needed and had lost became present again.

It was a great moment, but there was something missing, too. Though everyone responded to the music, it was with an odd furtiveness — not openly, communally, or with the infectious jubilation going on in Baltimore. No eyes met, no one laughed or sang, no one moved without restraint or melted into the beat. Another song came on. We went back to shuffling behind our carts and examining artisan cheeses. Nothing changed.

“Michael Jackson deliberately constructed his music as a gift of hope and healing”

I’ve been thinking ever since about those two scenes which, different as they were, had one thing in common: Michael Jackson. Dimitri Reeves could have chosen to play a thousand more recent and hip tracks than “Beat It,” but his choice to dance to Jackson’s tune was unerring. For perhaps more than any other entertainer, Michael Jackson deliberately constructed his music as a gift of hope and healing. Song after song offers a uniquely compassionate vision, a stubborn belief in human capacities for connection, pleasure, and justice-making. Do those ideals seem canned or quaint to you? Does the notion that music can rearrange the world seem far-fetched? I have tended to think so myself. But the shimmering moments Reeves created in Baltimore suggest otherwise.

Reeves’s powerful dance reminds us that Jackson achieved more than irresistible, superbly marketable tracks, or even magnificent music. His work also remains politically potent. One reason for that is Jackson’s insistence on responsibility and empathy — who am I to be blind, pretending not to see their need? Another is his work’s constantly reiterated invitation: Come and dance with me. We busy shoppers declined to dance and the loss was ours; but Dimitri Reeves and his neighbors chose, more wisely, to dance with Michael Jackson: to turn it way up, take it to others, refuse self-consciousness and judgement, and rejoice.

Will dancing with Michael Jackson magically heal the world and make it a better place for the entire human race? Will it answer the question a little girl asks a policeman in “We’ve Had Enough,” How is it that you get to choose who will live and who will die? Will it bring about justice for Freddie Gray or repair a racist “justice” system? No. But it could help; indeed, as Reeves has shown, it is already helping.

“mainstream culture in the US seems to resist Jackson’s outstretched hand”

What’s odd is the way mainstream culture in the United States, which needs all the help it can get, seems to resist Jackson’s outstretched hand. It’s noticeable: for a man who ruled the world of popular music for decades not long past, Michael Jackson has become a strangely shadowy figure. Not on the Las Vegas strip or at Sony Music, of course, where he continues to rake in millions every year and remains by far the highest-earning musician in the world, largely because of overseas sales.

What I’m talking about is mainstream, main-street cultures in the US, especially the cultures of privileged, white Americans like those at the Philadelphia grocery store. There, a cold-shoulder attitude toward Michael Jackson and his music has solidified, along with a reluctance to celebrate Jackson’s unabashed idealism, pioneering queer persona, and practices of inclusion and compassion. There is even a grudging quality to acknowledgments of his superb artistry. We don’t face Michael Jackson directly, with recognition. We don’t regard his achievement with the wonder it deserves. We don’t dance.

No matter what the context, this would be a pretty unworthy way to behave toward one of the 20th-century’s most important artists. But it’s an especially unwise attitude to take now, because it allows us to deflect the challenges that Jackson, both the man and the music, posed to ways of thinking and behaving that continue to poison communities in this country. Why should this be?

“the slow-motion crucifixion of Jackson’s reputation still goes on”

I asked a 20-something friend what he thought of Michael Jackson’s music: do kids still dance to it? My friend’s response was instructive. “Great music,” he said, “but when someone got up to what he did with little children, he’s better forgotten.” I was stunned. Is it possible? After one of the most expensive and intensive trials in American history resulted in “not guilty” on all counts, after repeated demonstrations that Michael Jackson engaged in no wrongdoing but was targeted by extortionists, and in the face of the now huge amount of consistent testimony to the honorable, damaged human being Jackson actually was, can it be that the media bottom-feeders who saw his lynching as a profit opportunity continue, to this day, to define Jackson and limit the power of his work? Apparently so. The slow-motion crucifixion of Jackson’s reputation that took place more than a decade ago still goes on.

It goes on, moreover, in unexpected ways. I do not want to suggest that what happened to Jackson is in any sufficient way comparable to what has happened to Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and scores of other Americans of color who have died recently at the hands of officers of the law. Jackson, after all, survived his ordeal (barely), and went on (briefly). I am not saying that all the recent suffering and injustice has some direct connection to Jackson’s specific experiences. But I do want to argue that the same structures of injustice that are permitting civil authorities to murder unarmed American citizens right now also hurt Jackson, and that his case can help us to understand and resist those structures.

The same nation of viewers who were willing to sit by and let the nightmare engulf Jackson now watches even more harrowing experiences overtake dozens of others. Some observers are using the irresponsibly selective footage from Baltimore that the national media have presented as fodder for reinforcing their prejudices. (Who would guess, watching TV, that destruction has been less common than orderly demonstrations and gestures of solidarity?) Jackson’s experiences and those of the many, many people of color who have recently run afoul of the police and died for it are not the same. But they are, in certain ways, related. They are disgraceful in similar ways, and for similar reasons. They expose similar pathologies that are eating away at us, and make us see more than we want to see about ourselves.

“there were no rules and no respect”

There is one thing that Michael Jackson’s experience makes clear. The acts of injustice that we are witnessing now are founded on, in a way authorized by, an appalling, long-standing fact of life in the US: that when it comes to respect, civil rights, and justice, it does matter if you’re black or white. Jackson was the most visible American of color in recent years who found that he had only to be accused to be treated savagely. But the discovery was by no means unique to him. (What was unique was how directly responsible the media were for what Jackson suffered; few actual criminals have to endure the ignominy he did in front of a global audience.) In Jackson’s case as in every one of the sickening cases we have heard about in the past couple of years, an American of color was denied one of the most precious rights all Americans supposedly enjoy: the presumption of innocence. Each of the cases is different, but in that important way, each is alike, too.

In Jackson’s case, what was perhaps most remarkable was the fact that every claim he made seemed somehow automatically impugnable, in the grossest and most intimate terms, by strangers, and in public. There were no rules and no respect. As a new husband, Jackson sat and listened while a journalist, on live international television, asked his wife to confirm that he was capable of sex. Not long before, another had asked him point blank whether he was a virgin. The anxiety that developed and intensified over the course of Jackson’s life was in fact a reasonable response to such monstrosity. No other hounded celebrity except the late Princess of Wales experienced the kind of ruthless, unrelenting invasions Jackson endured. Even Diana only faced the onslaught as an adult; Jackson had to deal with it all his life — from the nights when his venal father escorted groups of giggling girls to watch the adolescent Michael sleep to those final, outrageous, globally distributed images, snapped through the ambulance window, of a dying or already dead Jackson being pummeled and intubated. And then there was the much-reprinted image of the corpse, naked on the medical examiner’s gurney.

These media outrages and countless others were (and are) routinely explained via reference to Jackson’s peculiar character. He brought it on himself, we are told, with that confounding public persona — rather like an unarmed, racially marked teenager who “looks threatening.” But recourse to that kind of narrowly personal explanation deflects attention from the real problems, pervasive racism and systemic injustice. To cite the peculiarities or failures of the person you are brutalizing as a way to explain (excuse? extenuate?) the brutalization is a way of blaming the victim. It allows you to ignore how your own behavior and habits of thought accommodate brutality, if only through passivity.

To say so is not the same as saying that Michael Jackson was not remarkably vulnerable to abuse or that he didn’t make serious errors. He was, he did. Sentimental, reticent, and overly accommodating as victims of childhood abuse so often are, isolated, fragile, narcissistic, strange, and filthy rich, terrified of confrontation, spottily educated while burdened with genius, and used to his family making a meal of him, Jackson was, as Steven Spielberg famously put it, “like a fawn in a burning forest.” But none of that is the same as being a criminal, any more than running down a street or not allowing an unwarranted search of one’s home or cutting school is a reason to be shot. No wonder Jackson was overwhelmed. No wonder Americans are demonstrating in the streets. Who could do otherwise?

“the racism showed its demon face”

Beyond the reductive focus on individual peculiarities, there is another explanation relevant to both Jackson’s suffering and the civil rights crisis that we are facing now: racism. That’s the word, and it’s time to speak it out loud. Racism is not, primarily, about the people who suffer it; it is about those who practice it. It is not about different or strange individuals; it is about the everyday people who decide who is different and strange and choose to fear rather than celebrate them.

Once in a while, the racism that always swirled in shadows around Jackson clearly showed its demon face — for instance when the ignorant, seeing vitiligo and its treatment, accused him of “wanting to be white.” Michael Jackson always identified as black (I just look in the mirror; I know I’m black) and credited black entertainers as his major influences (James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, Otis Blackwell, and Sly Stone, among many others). He celebrated his African-American heritage to the point of giving both his sons his great-great-grandfather’s slave name, Prince. His music never abandoned, and always exalted, the glorious traditions of black American music. Nevertheless, Jackson is hated for his supposed desire to be white.

This irrational hatred dogs Jackson even after his death in June, 2009. Charlie Hebdo’s July cover that year showed a Jackson-accessoried skeleton with the caption “Michael Jackson, en fin blanc” — “Michael Jackson, white at last.” A squib circulating right now on the internet includes a photo of a fashion model with vitiligo and helpfully reminds us that this is the same disease Jackson “claimed” to have had. 

THE LUXURY SPOT: “Michael Jackson claimed to have had vitiligo as well, although I always thought he just bought bleach from Costco in bulk”

“Claimed,” despite a lifetime’s worth of photographic evidence, the unanimous testimony of family members, dermatologists, and make-up artists, the fact that the entertainer’s elder son seems also to have the rare hereditary disease, and even the autopsy’s definitive diagnosis.

THE DEBRIEF:  “vitiligo – the same condition Michael Jackson claimed made his skin turn white”

What white entertainer has ever won so little sympathy for a lifelong debilitating illness (one of several that Jackson suffered)? When has so little benefit-of-the-doubt been granted, so much malevolent nonsense been constructed? 

“He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables,” James Baldwin wrote, presciently, as Thriller conquered the world.

It should not surprise anyone that Michael Jackson, like virtually every other person of color in this society, suffered racism. What is remarkable is how starkly and routinely the individual explanation has been substituted for the social one in Jackson’s case.

The pattern is so egregious that, once we see it, it can educate us about our current dire state of affairs and show us the importance of naming and correcting this habit of deflection, self-justification, and continued abuse. Privileged white Americans need to learn to recognize their tendency to individualize oppression. Individuals of course contribute to their own lives; but in the context of America’s racial malaise, the problem is not primarily individual people of color; the problem is the system, and the habitual attitudes of those who enjoy the full privileges of citizens. 

“the amazing thing was his ability and determination to bring joy to others”

In the United States, we tend to understand difference as pathology. We are uncomfortable with anyone who exceeds our categories, disturbs our prejudices, or calls the bluff on reigning platitudes. Michael Jackson and his music did all that at once, on many levels. What is most important, though, and should not be forgotten, is that he did it with joy. To dwell over-long on Jackson’s suffering would be to forget his indomitable playfulness and strength of will. The amazing thing is not, finally, how weird Michael Jackson was or how difficult his life was, but how great was his capacity for delight, his generosity, his ability and determination to bring joy to others. Endlessly curious, delighted with people, and thrilled by the beauty of the world, he just had so much fun. He suffered, yes; he faced down and endured painful experiences. But that’s what makes his exuberance so remarkable, and makes the fact that he brought (and continues to bring) pleasure to other people so precious. No matter what, he danced. We need to remember and honor that, and dance along. 

Dimitri Reeves taught us many things late last month. One was that we need Michael Jackson now more than ever. The shameful treatment Jackson received at the hands of the popular culture he did so much to enrich was not an isolated phenomenon — it was only too symptomatic. Considered carefully, Jackson’s experience exposes pernicious attitudes and habits that are still very much at work, right now. It would be far better, of course, if Jackson hadn’t had to go through what he did, just as it would be better if Americans of color could walk our streets safe from agents of the law. The more powerful majority ought to be able to learn how to behave without the suffering of those already disadvantaged, and no amount of learning or growth for the already privileged can begin to redeem the kinds of wrongs we are talking about. But at the same time, it is crucial that those who enjoy privileges realize that not everyone does, and use their power to change that. At the very least, we should be demanding at this moment that everyone enjoy the presumption of innocence, something that would require revisions in the way the media and law enforcement operate.

Thanks to Dimitri Reeves, we’ve seen one small way to start in a healing direction, a way that he drew directly from Michael Jackson: we can step out and dance in the street, spreading joy instead of fear. Come and dance with me, Jackson wrote; Join me in my dance, please join me now. Reeves took Jackson up on the invitation.

To dance with Michael Jackson, to take his outstretched hand, is about more than honoring a difficult, extraordinary life and immense gifts — though it is high time we did that without grudging, judging, or telling lies. It is something we must do for ourselves and for each other — not in an attempt to keep ourselves safe from the present pain and danger, but to move farther into the most perplexing aspects of our own lives, and confront them with joy. It is a way of choosing the kind of future we want, and the kind of people we want to be.

Dancing with Michael Jackson will mean letting go of hatred and fear, acknowledging beauty in what seems strange to us, and being willing to take a chance. It will demand that we deal with other people imaginatively, empathetically, in what we think of as our own space, and with respect. In these ways, the dance Jackson invites us to dance is a kind of ethical practice. It is a way of living up to our creeds and professions, and of taking responsibility for our privileges.

Got the point? Good. Let’s dance.

Source: http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/dancing-with-michael-jackson/

John F. Kennedy said that “the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic”.

Well, in Michael Jackson’s case it is both the myths and lies that are the enemies of the truth. The mix is so big that there is a danger that people will never know the real Michael Jackson behind the wall of confusion created by Michael’s haters and so-called friends.

To be frank, this post was initially planned to be about Deepak Chopra, a ‘friend’ who created a myth of Michael dying of narcotics and who never corrected it. He wasn’t part of Michael’s circle in the later years of his life, but was the first to go on TV to voice his learned opinion about Michael’s death “from drugs” and never apologized for his mistake even when the autopsy report showed no trace of narcotics in Michael’s body. He actually knew nothing of Michael except what Grace Rwaramba occasionally told him and each time urged the Jackson family to “intervene” only to make them feel embarrassed when Michael was found clean.

Deepak Chopra was simply jumping to conclusions and I suspect that after Michael’s death he made rounds in the media thinking of his own interests first as he was clearing himself in advance of a possible police suspicion that he was one of Michael’s “enablers” he liked to talk so much about. Why, indeed, should his holistic-and-happiness business suffer because of a certain Michael Jackson?

Well, we understand that for many people ‘business comes first’ and this is probably why this post developed into a different subject – the problem of what is weird and what’s not, and the books that Michael Jackson really liked reading.

These books were introduced to Michael by Deepak Chopra and were read by him in the period described now by Robson/Safechuck in the most horrible terms of sex abuse (which is another of those myths), so I thought that the public should know of the real subjects that were on Michael Jackson’s mind at the very same time described by these rogues.

But first let’s look into the “weirdness” problem which is still one more myth about Michael Jackson.

WHAT’S WEIRD?

Following the media preconceptions that everything Michael Jackson did was “weird” and “bizarre”, Michael’s talk about levitation with Jordan Chandler mentioned in the previous post could also look somewhat strange to you.

This prompts Michael’s supporters to explain that he was speaking about “spiritual” levitation only, and Michael’s haters to apply this spiritual levitation argument to their favorite sex abuse subject claiming that the alleged sex with a minor was “lifting his spirit” this way.

Both will be wrong because Michael regarded levitation as a physical phenomenon. According to Jordan Chandler he was talking about “rising from the ground” and “defying gravity” in the literal meaning of these words.

But is it weird that Michael talked about it at all?

Absolutely not. Michael did not only read about it but also had first-hand information about levitation from his then mentor Deepak Chopra, an American authority on meditation and happiness who after Michael’s death also turned into a favourite media expert on MJ. This celebrity happiness advisor is welcomed by every host on American TV including Oprah Winfrey. With Oprah he has even launched a joint program on happiness called ‘all-new meditation experience “Expanding Your Happiness”’

So if you want to know all about levitation ask this well-respected American wellness guru, and if you do he will tell you that levitation is a common phenomenon anyone can master (no joke):

“People can lift off the ground and there are three stages according to Patanjali – there’s first that’s called hopping, then there’s floating and then there’s flying. Now I have taught and learnt these techniques and you know it’s very easy to get to the first stage. The second and third stage is theoretical because nobody has ever observed it but Patanjali says that if you have a critical mass of collective consciousness that’s practicing these techniques then it will happen. We don’t know”. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/full-transcript-your-call-with-dr-deepak-chopra-568362

Google images

In one of his many books this Michael Jackson’s spiritual mentor described his personal experience with lifting off.

The description comes in the context of “conditioning” which MJ haters so much like to fuss about and this again fuses conditioning and levitation into one experience and explains why it was mentioned by Michael in a combination with each other:

“As the meditator begins to practice, he lays down a pattern of repetition in which the body more and more begins to understand what the mind wants. In scientific parlance this is called behavioral conditioning.

In common language, he is simply acquiring a habit. Mundane as it sounds, flying is simply a habit. Over time, the body stops shaking and, unexpectedly, while doing nothing more than the same practice he has done in the past, the person accomplishes the result. His body lifts up and goes forward.

Needless to say, this is a remarkable moment for every meditator, and of the fifteen thousand TM meditators in America who practice the yogic flying technique, each one remembers his first liftoff with incredible vividness. My own experience is fairly typical. I was sitting on a foam rubber pad, using the technique as I had been taught, when suddenly my mind became blank for an instant, and when I opened my eyes, I was 4 feet ahead of where I had been before.”

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/chopra.html

Deapak Chopra’s son Gotham also succeeded in lifting in the air during the meditation class to which he was sent by his father. He speaks about levitation in a humorous and matter-of-fact way as if it were a mere trifle:

“The course culminated with our learning the “flying sutra,” which basically was a sound that triggered spontaneous hopping — branded levitation. You know, the whole “awakening the kundalini” etc. At the time, it seemed some sort of miracle and I was really proud of myself for achieving such a feat. Over time, it became questionable what the real benefit was in being able to hop around a foam covered room with dozens of others.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gotham-chopra/a-brief-history-of-a-medi_b_677440.html

So if you think that Michael Jackson was “weird” believing that levitation was possible, you are obliged to consider Deepak and Gotham Chopra even “weirder”, because Michael was introduced to these ideas by Chopra, and both father and son claim that they are able to lift in the air and that it isn’t a big deal.

What’s strange though is that I have never heard the word “weird” used in respect of Deepak Chopra. Quite on the contrary there is much respect, praise and even public adulation here.

THE POWER OF PRECONCEPTIONS

Indeed, the name of Deepak Chopra is a byword for success. No article written about him and Michael Jackson goes without a statement that he is a best-selling author who introduced Michael to meditation and spiritual authors like the Indian poet Tagore and Sufi poet Rumi.

Besides that Chopra helped Michael with his “Dancing the dream” poems and it was also Chopra who brought to Michael a Nigerian girl Grace Rwaramba, who became a nanny to Michael’s children and was like a daughter to Deepak Chopra (she even calls him “papa”).

In short Deepak Chopra was a totally indispensable person in Michael Jackson’s life.

Deepak Chopra recalls that when he met Michael in 1988 (the year when Michael also met Jimmy Safechuck), Michael lived a ‘holistic’ way of life – he was totally drug-free, didn’t touch a drop of alcohol and drank only water.

At the time the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ views were still very much part of Michael’s life and he was keeping to their teaching almost to the letter of it. As we know, breaking their rules by celebrating Christmas, for example, was nearly impossible for him and akin to a grave sin. It took Elizabeth Taylor five years to talk him into celebrating Christmas and the first time was in 1993 after which Michael felt so guilty that he cried in the bathroom out of his “guilt”.

In 1988 Michael was already thirty, but he was still a pure and innocent soul with a very sensitive heart and thin skin. He cried when he heard of starving children on the other side of the world – which alas, is taken by most of us as simple “news”.

In the Daily Beast piece of July 2, 2009 Chopra described his first meeting Michael in 1988:

“Deepak Chopra had met the singer in 1988, when he had been invited to Neverland as part of a daylong party: “And he was so shy, he barely said anything.” Then he started dancing and suddenly that shy boy transcended in front of me into someone completely different.” They played music all night, and Jackson was “unstoppable.”

The two became quick friends. Jackson would stay with Chopra and his wife when they lived in Massachusetts, and Chopra accompanied him occasionally on tour. The Jackson he met and grew to like was initially not only drug-free, “but he didn’t touch a drop of alcohol, not even aspirin. He would only drink water. He had been raised by his mother [as a Jehovah’s Witness] to use nothing at all, and it was still part of his life.”

Jackson lived a “holistic” life when Chopra met him, and the wellness guru taught him how to meditate. Over time, they spent long hours in overnight conversations, and Jackson opened up to Chopra as if he were a therapist. It was in those talks that Chopra learned about what a tortured soul Jackson was. Jackson shared with him intimate details about the violent household in which he grew up. “He was very damaged from his childhood,” Deepak told me.

A patchiness to his skin made him feel odd, and he refused ever to put on a bathing suit and go swimming, no matter how many times friends urged him to do so.

It was only on stage, when performing, that he became someone comfortable in his own skin.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/07/02/chopra-michael-jackson-could-have-been-saved.html

An interesting point about Michael never going swimming and showing his skin to anyone is repeated by Chopra in another source:

I met Michael more than 20 years ago; I went to teach him meditation at Neverland. He was very shy, very introverted, but very curious about consciousness and spirituality. You know, while the world called him weird, he wondered why the world was so weird.

He’d ask me, Why do people go to war? Why is there genocide? What’s happening in Sudan? Why have we killed the environment? Why is there racism and bigotry and hatred and prejudice? We talked about starving children in Mumbai, and he would start to cry. Or we’d start to talk about the trophy-hunting in Canada of the grizzly bear, and he would start to cry. In his mind, the world was psychotic.

Michael had a skin disease called leukoderma [vitiligo], which created huge patches of white. He had, as a result, a very, very poor image of his body. He was almost ashamed of it. That’s why he would cover it up.

Why do you think he wore a glove and all that stuff? He would not go into his swimming pool in his own house with his clothes off. He would just jump into the pool at the last moment, you know, take his robe off, but he was ashamed that people would look at all the blotches on his skin.

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1907409_1907413_1907555,00.html

If the media and public had known that Michael went to his own pool with his clothes on there would have been no end to all those “bizarre” stories, but now that we know how disfiguring vitiligo can be, I hope they understand.

But the fact itself that in the late 80s Michael always covered his skin is extremely important – it means that at the time under no circumstances he would show himself to anyone even in his bathing trunks. This must have been true at least until the moment he more or less evened the color of his skin in early 90s.

Given all the craziness taking place in the world Michael was right to believe that it is the world which is weird and psychotic, and not him. However the world thought different and looked at him as a “freak”. Deeply hurt by this ugly contempt Michael asked Chopra why, apparently not realizing that he was scorned not only because of his changing looks but also because of his way of thinking or the very same things his mentor was teaching him and was applauded, admired and praised for.

Indeed, isn’t it strange that when Deepak Chopra speaks of levitation as a common experience anyone can master, it is taken by the public as a mark of his singularity and excellence they are even ready to pay money for, but if Michael had ever ventured to say it publicly, they would have trashed him as a “wacko” and taken away his children as if from a madman?

When a happiness guru says that “nature is the extension of ourselves” the public is hushed up in awe to hear this wonderful revelation, but when Michael Jackson speaks of the same they laugh and mock him as a freak expressing some weird thoughts.

And what’s interesting is that so different an attitude to one and the same thing is displayed by the same people!

Actually this is what conditioning and preconceptions are all about – the public has been conditioned, trained, guided and taught by the media to mock at Michael irrespective of all the positive, good and wise things he ever did and said.

‘If the media calls me weird, what word would the media have for so many things going on around us,’ Michael Jackson once asked his friend, the holistic guru and best-selling author Deepak Chopra. ‘People think my behavior is weird. Isn’t the world more weird?’

Chopra had introduced the poetry of sufi poet Rumi and Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore to Michael Jackson, not to forget meditation.

He had also helped the pop star produce Dancing the Dream in 1992. It was a collection of poems and essays that discussed issues like world hunger, homeless children and world peace. He introduced Grace Rwamba to Jackson, who would become his children’s nanny and surrogate mother.

Chopra says he cannot forget the anguish in his friend’s voice as Jackson discussed the word ‘weird.’

“He talked about what was happening in Sudan,” Chopra continued. “He talked about global warming. He felt the cruelty in Sudan, the degradation of the environment, and he was convinced that those things were far more weird than his own alleged weirdness.

“He was a very delicate person, a very innocent soul,” added Chopra whose advice is sought by some of the biggest names in Hollywood, including Nicolas Cage. “I have never seen him get angry and say a bad thing about anyone.”

“He had many great qualities as an individual and I have always felt he was greatly misunderstood, and many people were not fully aware of a Jackson who really cared for his fellow beings.”

Since Jackson’s death, Chopra has been besieged by the media. “He was very concerned about nature and ecology and thought deeply about man’s relationship with nature,” Chopra said, adding that he had given Jackson a copy of Tagore’s Gitanjali.

Chopra remembers how, many years ago, after an exhausting performance in Bucharest, Jackson sat backstage with Chopra chatting about Sufi poetry. Tagore soon joined the list of writers Jackson admired. “He was reading a poem by Tagore when we talked the last time, just about two weeks ago,” Chopra said.

Recently when Jackson and Chopra chatted at the former’s request to discuss the lyrics for a new composition, the singer and performer talked about creating a spiritual relationship with the nature. “It was like, we ought to look at the world as the extension of ourselves,” Chopra mused.

http://movies.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/29/deepak-chopra-on-michael-jackson.htm

“We ought to look at the world as the extension of ourselves” – what a great thought Michael wanted to share with us but didn’t have time to. But will all these conditioned people be able to understand?

THE MATTERS ON MICHAEL’S MIND

The above piece from Deepak Chopra contains some very important facts no one really pays attention to.

First of all, for some reason Sudan was mentioned by Michael again and again, and my co-admin Susanne explained why – in the 80s and early 90s thousands of very young children (aged between 6 and 12) fled in groups from Sudan to Ethiopia and Kenya during a civil war in their country. They traveled by foot for years in search of safe refuge and covered over a thousand miles across three countries. More than a half died along their epic journey, due to starvation, dehydration, sickness, attacks by wild animals and enemy soldiers. The remaining several thousand eventually ended up in the Kakuma refugee camp in the desert of Northern Kenya. Most of them were orphans and were called “the lost boys from Sudan”. They lived in Kakuma for about 10 years and finally were offered to migrate to USA to start a new life because it was impossible to go back to Sudan.

“I hate to see suffering. I hate to see people in need and feel God gave me a gift and I have to use it responsibly by giving back and I will do it until I have pennies left or when the good Lord calls me home” ~MJ

We can imagine how worried Michael was about the plight of these small children who were all alone and saw nothing in their life except war, death, starvation and a refugee camp.

In this situation Michael must have been mostly concerned about the small ones – they are not responsible for what adults do, but suffer the worst.

By the way, the refugee camp in Kenya still exists and holds more than 170,000 people as the conflict in Sudan is a never-ending one.

The second fact never paid attention to in the above Deepak Chopra’s piece is that he gave to Michael a book by an Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore called Gitanjali (the book became one of Michael’s favourite readings).

Gitanjali by Rabindranath Tagore

The Gitanjali title says nothing to most of us and few take the trouble to look.  I was curious and did look up and it was worth every minute of it – the book told me about Michael’s frame of mind and the real subject of Michael’s interests at that time.

Gitanjali is a book of poems reflecting Tagore’s views on seeking God, true worship and living the faith, which is not the same as a simple observation of religious rituals and rites.

Tagore saw true worship in establishing an emotional link with the Creator, keeping one’s heart pure and free from any evil and doing what God expects of a human being – be humble, simple and help those who were less fortunate than you.

Tagore called it a “poet’s” religion. Here is a concise summary of Gitanjali – Tagore was Michael’s favourite poet and it is important for us to know the ideas he admired:

 The Religion of Gitanjali.  The central theme of Gitanjali is devotional: it expresses the yearning of the devotee for the reunion with the divine.  It is an acknowledgement that the human soul has no significance unless it is filled by the Supreme.

The human body is the temple of God; so it needs to be kept pure. Since God dwells in the inmost shrine of the heart, one has to keep away all evils from one’s heart. Our effort should be to reveal God in our actions because it is God who gives us the power to act.

In our relationship with the divine what is important is the total self-surrender so that we may accept God as everything.

Tagore is very critical with regard to the existential ritualism. The religion that does not have any concern for one’s fellow beings, and the offerings that bar others their basic need, is useless.  True worship of God consists not in the performance of rites and ceremonies, but extending a helping hand to the suffering and the needy.

God is present in every other, in the simplest and the meekest.

God is Love. God is the ultimate hope and source of strength to human being. God becomes a being with whom an emotional relationship can be established and through whom life can derive sustenance and solace.

It is on account of this emphasis that the world itself is seen as “creation out of joy.” If God is love, participation is His creation is participation in His loving act. That is how, creation itself becomes an act of joy and the feeling of the “burden of existence” is redeemed to a very great extent.

http://snphilosophers2005.tripod.com/jyoti.pdf

Guided by the media and malicious prosecutor Tom Sneddon some people wondered what kind of books were on Michael’s reading list and now we can give a definitive answer to these inquisitive people – right at the time when some claim that Michael was engaged in most reprehensible things, he was busy reading a book about seeking God and surrendering one’s will to the Supreme.

Judging by Michael’s reading Gitanjali, he was also reflecting on the body and heart being the temple of God and the need to keep it pure and free from all evil. And also on God being love and a source of all creation and joy, and this is why Michael was so much into spreading joy and happiness among people:

•  “I’m just a person who wants to be honest and do good, make people happy and give them the greatest sense of escapism through the talent God has given me. That’s where my heart is, that’s all I want to do. Just let me share and give, put a smile on people’s faces and make their hearts feel happy.” Michael Jackson, The Daily Mirror Magazine, 1999

Tagore’s thoughts are easily recognizable in Michael’s songs, interviews and way of life. As an example it would probably be enough to remember his call to people to be God’s glow and the thought he shared with Tagore that God outdid himself when he created children: “When I see children, I see that God has not yet given up on man.”

And sharing Tagore’s ideals was not just a fleeting moment in Michael’s life – the poet’s religion remained Michael’s companion for almost twenty years. He got familiar with Tagore’s writings in early 90s and twenty years later he still spoke about him in his last conversation with Deepak Chopra, just two weeks before his death.

So we can safely say that Tagore’s religion of love, purity, compassion and excellence in the eyes of God dominated Michael’s way of thinking for at least two decades.

The third important fact we learn from the above Deepak Chopra’s piece is that after his concert during the Dangerous tour (1992) Michael would not be drinking alcohol or taking drugs, or at the very least leaf through a Playboy – no, he would be quietly sitting backstage all alone drinking bottled water and reading poetry. Sufi poetry this time.

Can you imagine that after this smashing Bucharest concert Michael Jackson sat backstage all alone reading poetry?

Do you remember that smashing three-hour concert in Bucharest Deepak Chopra is speaking about? It was on October 1, 1992 and it was there that the fans fainted and were taken away by a dozen.

The concert was shown on TV and many of us have seen it, but none of us expected that after the concert and so triumphant a success Michael was sitting all alone reading Islamic poetry.

If you recollect that Michael of that period is now described by his haters as a carefree cynic capable of molesting small children, one can only wonder who is mad here and how come a person who was so keen on spiritual matters, was genuinely seeking God and was shunning from all evil could be described as a criminal worse than a murderer?

Before you even look into these rogues’ fiction stories I suggest you see Michael the way he really was in early 90s – he was over thirty and the Jehovah Witness views were still a big part of his life, he was very “holistic”, didn’t take drugs or a drop of alcohol (despite his burn and two operations on his scalp). He was also so terribly shy and ashamed of his body that he never showed it to anyone. This young man was totally engrossed in humanitarian problems and cried when he heard of starving children in India and thousands of orphans in Sudan, and was a type of a believer in God who thought that he was personally answerable to God for everything he did and said. And this was a man who relaxed after his concerts on the Dangerous tour by reading the Islamic poet Rumi.

If all these facts still don’t convince you that all these liars’ stories are describing someone fictional, we will then have to look into the writings of the Sufi poet Rumi and the ideas Michael was sharing with this Persian poet.

SUFI POET RUMI

The Sufi poet Rumi lived in Persia in the 13th century, so when I was looking him up I was simply curious why so ancient and distant an author was so special to Michael, and just intended to limit myself to a couple of quotes.

However these plans were not to be realized – same like Michael, I simply lost myself in Rumi. Choosing a couple of quotes was out of the question as all his sayings were worth citing, and the research took me even as far as digging a bit into what Sufism is.

Wiki says:

• “Sufism is mystical-ascetic aspect of Islam that deals with the purification of inner self.  Sufis strive to obtain direct experience of God by making use of “intuitive and emotional faculties” and focus on the purification of traits deemed reprehensible while adding praiseworthy traits. The inner law of Sufism consists of rules about repentance from sin, the purging of contemptible qualities and evil traits of character, and adornment with virtues and good character. One of the most important doctrines of Sufism is the concept of the ‘perfect man’.”

Wow, so not only Michael was still following the path of a Jehovah Witness and admiring Tagore’s religion of love, compassion and purity, but he also appreciated the same in the poetry of a Sufi poet Rumi?

And this book about God and purification of oneself was another favourite book on Michael Jackson’s reading list?

Michael Jackson’s haters like talking about “patterns” in his behavior, so I wonder how they will explain this obvious pattern in the choice of books Michael selected for reading?

See what the 13^th century poet says about purification as the only way to properly live one’s life:

• “Whatever purifies you is the right path, I will not try to define it.” 
• “Be like the sun for grace and mercy. Be like the night to cover others’ faults. Be like running water for generosity. Be like death for rage and anger. Be like the Earth for modesty. Appear as you are. Be as you appear.”
• “Listen with ears of tolerance! See through the eyes of compassion! Speak with the language of love” 
• “When you have indulged a lust, your wing drops off;
  you become lame, abandoned by a fantasy.
  …People fancy they are enjoying themselves,
  but they are really tearing out their wings for the sake of an illusion.” 

When you read Rumi you realize how close to his way of thinking are Michael’s songs and his “Dancing the dream” poems. Rumi, for example, spoke of the heart as a mirror that needs to be rubbed and polished to give a human being clarity to “see the unseen”. Only those who have polished their heart are able to see what is unseen by the eye.

Actually this thought applies best to Michael’s detractors. They see in him only dirt but what it mirrors most is their own inner self – there isn’t clarity in their hearts to see the truth and notice the essential purity and innocence of Michael Jackson.

Rumi is relentless to these people:

• “Study me as much as you like, you will not know me, for I differ in a hundred ways from what you see me to be. Put yourself behind my eyes and see me as I see myself, for I have chosen to dwell in a place you cannot see.” 
•  “Everyone sees the unseen in proportion to the clarity of his heart, and that depends upon how much he has polished it. Whoever has polished it more sees more – more unseen forms become manifest to him.” 
• “As you live deeper in the Heart, the Mirror gets clearer and cleaner.” 
• “If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished??” 

• “What else can I say?
  You will only hear
  what you are ready to hear.
  Don’t nod your head,
  Don’t try to fool me—
  the truth of what you see
  is written all over your face!” 

• “Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.” 

It took Michael much courage to turn from songs like Thriller to public prayers like The Man in the Mirror

The last quote has a direct bearing on Michael’s “Man in the Mirror”, and though technically the song was not written by MJ it was clearly inspired by his ideas.

The message is absolutely the same as that of Rumi – if everyone starts with himself it will ultimately change the world.

And at this point I thought of something different. I suddenly thought of how much courage it must have taken Michael to turn his songs into public prayers like “The Man in the Mirror”, and defy the expectations of the public that was still marvelling at his Thriller and Billie Jean.

In the 90s he changed the subject of his songs and called for people to look at themselves, keep away from wrong and hate, and heal the world by purifying their hearts first.

No pop star before Michael had ever done it. It seems that there is an unspoken rule for the lyrics of pop songs to be easy, simple and not giving food for thought. Certainly nothing like this which is breaking all rules:

• “I’m starting with the man in the mirror/I’m asking him to change his ways/And no message could have been any clearer/If you wanna make the world a better place/Take a look at yourself and then make a change.” Michael Jackson

Everyone says that Michael wanted his later albums to surpass the success of “Thriller”, but who could guarantee him the success of his new songs when he started talking about everyone’s personal responsibility for the world and referring to God at that? People on the dance floor don’t like to be reminded of serious subjects, and this change was actually a big risk, however Michael did take it – evidently because he could no longer help himself.

He risked a lot by starting talking to people seriously

These ideas must have been so important to Michael that he simply had to reach out to others. And it did require much courage of him. So when some say that Michael always placed his career first I will disagree – there were far more important things for him than that, as he risked a lot for the chance to talk to people seriously.

The ancient poet Rumi also encouraged Michael to step on the new road, speak a new language and be himself no matter what:

• “Speak a new language so that the world will be a new world.” 
• “I want to sing like the birds sing, not worrying about who hears or what they think.” 

• “Doing as others told me, I was Blind.
  Coming when others called me, I was Lost.
  Then I left everyone, myself as well.
  Then I found Everyone, Myself as well.” 

• “Conventional opinion is the ruin of our souls.” 

Remember the media condemning Michael for defying conventional opinion by some of his statements? They didn’t know that Michael Jackson was simply following the advice taught to him by the ancient wisdom.

The other common passion Michael shared with Rumi was dance. For both of them dance had to do with a divine energy. Michael said about it:

• “It is divine, it is pure, it is revelation, without making it sound spiritual or religious, but it is a divine energy.  Some people call it the spirit, like when the spirit comes into the room.  Some people look down on it.  Religions sometimes look down on it because they try to say it’s demonic, it’s the cult, it’s the devil.  It isn’t; it is God-like.  It is pure God-like energy.  You feel God’s light. Excerpted from “The Michael Jackson Tapes”

And Wiki says that Rumi also “believed passionately in the use of music, poetry, and dance as a path for reaching God”. Indeed, when you read Rumi’s verses it looks like dance was almost a way of life for him:

• “Dance, when you’re broken open. Dance, if you’ve torn the bandage off. Dance in the middle of the fighting. Dance in your blood. Dance when you’re perfectly free.” 
• “‎Dancing is not just getting up painlessly, like a leaf blown on the wind; dancing is when you tear your heart out and rise out of your body to hang suspended between the worlds.” 

Dance was a passion Michael Jackson shared with Rumi

This is where the Turkish “whirling dervishes” actually come from. The dervishes are Sufis and by their dance they are commemorating the death of their famous poet Rumi.

And if you think that their whirling is “just” a dance you will be wrong – their dance is a way to reach union with God.

To elaborate on it more it represents “a mystical journey of spiritual ascent through mind and love to the Perfect One.  In this journey, the seeker symbolically turns towards the truth, grows through love, abandons the ego, finds the truth, and arrives at the Perfect. The seeker then returns from this spiritual journey, with greater maturity, to love and to be of service to the whole of creation without discrimination with regard to beliefs, races, classes, and nations.”

When I read it I have the impression that the described formula of spirit ascent, starting with a search for the truth, growing through love and abandoning one’s ego, and arriving at the Perfect where the truth is finally found, and then returning back to be of service to the whole creation without any discrimination, is a concise summary of everything Michael was trying to tell us. At least this is what I feel Michael’s songs to be all about.

Same as Tagore, Rumi also spoke of God as Love and even called his poetry Love religion, and at this point I realized that the ideas of these two poets were the origin of Michael’s famous “I love you” said to almost everyone.

His mother Katherine does not say it that often (though she probably means it), so it was surely Rumi who inspired Michael to be so open in his manifestation of love towards people and speak to them in the new language of love. Rumi said about it:

• “I belong to no religion.
  My religion is Love.
  Every heart is my temple.”

And Michael Jackson also believed in “being humble and believing in yourself and having true love in your heart for the world, and really trying to help people through lyrics and the love of music and dance, because I truly do love people very much.”  (1996 TV Interview with Ian “Molly” Meldrum)

Knowing the fuss made by Michael’s haters about Michael saying “I love you” to his younger and older friends and the haters’ insistence that it must be something “sexual” I decided to try and look into what Rumi’s love religion is all about.

LOVE RELIGION

There is a voice that doesn’t use words. Listen ~Rumi

The short answer for it is that God is the source of all love and that this love permeates the entire universe.

For the longer answer see what Rumi says about it:

• Love is an infinite ocean whose skies are a bubble of foam.
  Know that it is the waves of Love which make the wheel of the
  Heavens turn; without Love the world would be inanimate.
  How is an inorganic thing transformed into a plant?
  How are the plants sacrificed to become gifted with spirit?
  How is the spirit sacrificed for the Breath, of which only a
  Whiff was enough to impregnate Mary?
  Each atom is intoxicated with this Perfection and hastens
  Toward it… Their haste says implicitly: “Glory be to God.”

Rumi calls God the Perfect, Friend and the Beloved (so make no mistake to take this word literally) and lovers are actually not only those who love each other, but in the first place those who “both share love towards the Being that transcends their beings” as the Aljazeera cite explains it.

To put it simply, love religion is not a sexual revolution as some could expect from the title of it, but it is love revolving around the Divine. Rumi says:

• “The religion of lovers is beyond all faiths. The only religion for lovers is God.”
• “Religion offers knowledge and escape from pain, but those who give freely of themselves are God’s favorites.”
• “Love is the bridge between you and everything.” 
• “With life as short as a half taken breath, don’t plant anything but love.” 

So it is not love (or sex) which is god and the subject of adulation, but vice versa, it is God that is love pervading all world creation and embracing us into one.  Universal love is like losing oneself in the Creator and being at one with every piece of his creation – be it a human being, an animal or a blade of grass.

Remember Michael’s plans he shared with Deepak Chopra to write a song about creating a spiritual relationship with the nature and the world being an extension of ourselves? This must be it, and we find the similar idea in Rumi’s verses too:

• “A strange passion is moving in my head. My heart has become a bird which searches in the sky. Every part of me goes in different directions. Is it really so that the one I love is Everywhere?”

• “Love is the whole thing. We are only pieces.” 

• “Do not feel lonely, the entire universe is inside you.” 
• “And you? When will you begin that long journey into yourself?” 
• “Don’t wait any longer.
  Dive in the ocean,
  Leave and let the sea be you.” 
• “You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.” 

You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop. ~Rumi

But if each of us is the entire ocean in a drop then our potential should also be as big as that of an ocean? Rumi assures us that this is the case:

• This universe is not outside of you. 
  Look inside yourself;
  everything that you want, 
  you are already that.” 
• “You were born with potential. 
  You were born with goodness and trust. 
  You were born with ideals and dreams. 
  You were born with greatness. 
  You were born with wings. 
  You are not meant for crawling, so don’t. 
  You have wings. 
  Learn to use them and fly.” 
• “Everything in the universe is within you. Ask all from yourself.” 
• “Start a huge, foolish project, like Noah…it makes absolutely no difference what people think of you.” 
• “You were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?” 
• “Set your life on fire. Seek those who fan your flames”

Remember Robson complaining in his lawsuit that Michael also encouraged him and professed that he would be greater than Steven Spilberg and his forecast didn’t come true? And the deceased Michael is allegedly to blame for it and should pay him a compensation?

I suggest that Robson re-addresses his claim to Rumi who influenced Michael’s way of thinking or at least to Deepak Chopra who introduced this Sufi poet to him, but not to Michael who also learned these ideas from the 13^th century poet. Michael surely mentioned the original source to Robson and it isn’t his fault that Robson did not read Rumi and doesn’t know whom to sue for his ruined plans.

Researchers conclude that Rumi’s poetry can be summarised in one line: “Everything other than God is a falsehood”.

The same can be said about Michael – his devotion to God was infinite and he was never shy to say it to his younger audience and speak about God even in his dance songs.  Michael would subscribe to each of these Rumi’s words:

• “What? Are you still pretending you are separate from the Beloved?” 
• “You have forgotten the One
  who doesn’t care about ownership,
  who doesn’t try to turn a profit
  from every human exchange.” 
• Although you appear in earthly form
  Your essence is pure Consciousness.
  You are the fearless guardian
  of Divine Light.
  So come, return to the root of the root
  of your own soul.

“It’s strange that God doesn’t mind expressing Himself/Herself in all the religions of the world, while people still cling to the notion that their way is the only right way. Whatever you try to say about God, someone will take offense, even if you say everyone’s love of God is right for them.
For me the form God takes is not the most important thing. What’s most important is the essence. My songs and dances are outlines for Him to come in and fill. I hold out the form. She puts in the sweetness.” ~MJ, Dancing the Dream

You will also immediately recognize Michael’s views in Rumi’s universal message of love – people of all religions and backgrounds can live together in peace if they purify their hearts, abandon their ego and give up hostility and hatred.

When all belong to One there is no division between people and each can find a place for oneself to be in harmony with the rest.

It is utterly amazing that this was said by Rumi in the 13^th century and people are still unable to hear it:

• “Since we worship the one God, then all religions must be one”
• “I am not from east or west
  not up from the ground
  or out of the ocean
  my place is placeless
  a trace of the traceless
  I belong to the Beloved” 
•  “And watch two men washing clothes, one makes dry clothes wet. The other makes wet clothes dry. They seem to be thwarting each other, but their work is a perfect harmony. Every holy person seems to have a different doctrine and practice, but there’s really only one work.” 
• “Lover’s nationality is separate from all other religions,
  The lover’s religion and nationality is the Beloved.”
• “We may know who we are or we may not. We may be Muslims, Jews or Christians but until our hearts become the mould for every heart we will see only our differences.” 
• “What are “I” and “You”?
  Just lattices
  In the niches of a lamp
  Through which the One Light radiates.
  “I” and “You” are the veil
  Between heaven and earth;
  Lift this veil and you will see
  How all sects and religions are one.
• “I looked in temples, churches, and mosques. But I found the Divine within my heart.” 
• “Every war and every conflict between human beings has happened because of some disagreement about names. It is such an unnecessary foolishness, because just beyond the arguing there is a long table of companionship set and waiting for us to sit down. What is praised is one, so the praise is one too, many jugs being poured into a huge basin. All religions, all this singing one song. The differences are just illusion and vanity. Sunlight looks a little different on this wall than it does on that wall and a lot different on this other one, but it is still one light.

Rumi has become very popular lately (he is described as the “best-selling point in the US”), however some critics say that his admirers tend to misappropriate his poetry and focus on their own self instead of focusing on the “annihilation of the Self in the presence of the Divine” as Rumi was teaching.

Expanding your happiness all-new meditation experience from Oprah and Deepak

Indeed, “Expanding your Happiness” groups like the ones promoted by Deepak Chopra/Oprah Winfrey may be very helpful for reaching personal happiness and peace of mind even despite the world of trouble and chaos around us, but it still seems to be in some contradiction with Rumi’s call to be selfless and be of service to the whole creation.

What’s clear is that the harassed, ridiculed and unhappy Michael Jackson wasn’t in the least thinking of expanding his personal happiness when he was going to orphanages in every country he was on tour and visiting burnt children in hospitals, and sharing his love and generosity with the needy and the sick.

Michael Jackson with a burn victim on one of his hospital visits

It was literally to his last breath that he kept thinking of others and remained a truly selfless soul, thus following the principles of love, purity and self-denial taught to him by the Jehovah Witnesses, Rumi and Tagore.

“Ego is a veil between humans and God”, said Rumi and taught him not to be prideful of himself (which he absolutely wasn’t as Debbie Rowe said):

•  “Shall I tell you our secret? We are charming thieves who steal hearts and never fail because we are the friends of the One. Blessed is the poem that comes through me but not of me because the sound of my own music will drown the song of Love.”

And exactly that same was said by Michael about making his music. He always surprised us by saying that his songs didn’t belong to him – it was a gift from high above that simply fell into his lap. Michael never took credit for them and knew that they were the work of God:

• “I wrote ‘Will You Be There’ at my house, Neverland in California… I didn’t think about it hard. That’s why it’s hard to take credit for the songs that I write, because I just always feel that it’s done from above. I feel fortunate for being that instrument through which music flows. I’m just the source through which it comes. I can’t take credit for it because it’s God’s work. He’s just using me as the messenger…” Michael Jackson in Ebony Jet interview, May 1992

• “The song writing process is something very difficult to explain, because it’s very spiritual. It’s, uh…You really have it in the hands of God, and it’s as if its been written already – that’s the real truth. As if its been written in its entirety before were born and you’re just really the source through which the song come. Really. Because there is…they just fall right into your lap in it’s entirety. You don’t have to do much thinking about it. And I feel guilty having to put my name, sometimes, on the songs that I – I do write them – I compose them, I write them, I do the scoring, I do the lyrics, I do the melodies but still, it’s a…it’s a work of God.” Michael Jackson, online audio chat, October 21st, 2001
• “The key to being a wonderful writer is not to write. You just get out of the way. Leave room for God to walk in the room. And when I write something that I know is right, I get on my knees and say thank you. Thank you, Jehovah!” Michael talking about working with Quincy Jones and how God was behind his creativity, from the Ebony magazine 2007 interview

Source: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/His-Faith.html

God and music, music and God – these were two recurrent themes in Michael’s talk, the two wonders interrelated with each other where music was regarded by Michael as a gift from the Supreme. The precious emotional bond with God was a condition for Michael to be able to create and this is why Michael said prayers after writing a song and got on his knees to thank Jehovah for it.

But have you ever realized that Michael valued this spiritual bond too much to be able to discard it for the extremely sinful things he was accused of? And that he would have never broken this bond even for all treasures of the world, let alone crimes he was simply unable to commit?

MJ with Kellie Parker, Sean Lennon and Brandon Adams, “Moonwalker”

Indeed, children were so sacred to Michael that he thought them to be God’s representation on earth:

• “When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much. That’s what I see.”

• “By loving children I am able to see God. I see God through children. If it wasn´t for children I would not understand who God is, who He is, no matter what the Bible says, even though I love the Bible. But children are proof. You can write and talk all you want, but I see it. Man, do I see it.

•  “Children – this is my opinion – represent the purest, the quitessence of honesty, of love, of God. To me they are the God´s way of saying there is hope, there is such a thing as humanity. Be like children, be humble like them, be sweet, be innocent. It shows in the eyes, I always see it in the eyes. When you look in a child´s eyes you see just a pure innocence and it reminds me to be humble, to be sweet and to be really good.”

• “I don´t mean to sound weird, but I really believe that children are God. I think that they are the purest form of the creation of God. When a child steps into a room I am totally changed. I feel their energy, their presence, and their spirit. I think we have to remember it is so easy for adults and parents to push them aside and not to pay attention to them. But I think they have so much to say and we don´t listen, we don´t feel. It´s almost hard to put it into words.” 

http://www.truemichaeljackson.com/on-children/

It’s high time we finally realized that Michael Jackson’s system of values had no place for the dirt attributed to him by his haters. He believed in God in all forms and shapes that the One can only manifest himself. Michael was in love with all God’s creation – the planet, its people, children, animals, nature. He was a Jehovah Witness, an admirer of the Islamic poet Rumi and a pupil of the Indian philosopher Tagore all at once, and from all these powerful sources he was learning to live a pure way of life and be free from dirt, greed, ingratitude and hatred, all of which stand in the way of purification of one’s inner self.

And in the late 80s and early 90s, described by some people in wholly fictitious terms, Michael was busy with something totally different – the personal pain he went through due to the burn, vitiligo and scalp operations resulted in intense spiritual work for him and seeking the will of God even in the troubles befalling him.

He had read a lot and was ready to share it with his listeners, and took the courage to talk to people about serious matters on his mind directly through his songs. He started the Heal the World Foundation and sent there all the money he earned in the world tour, began writing hymns about changing ourselves and turning the world into a better place and wanted to share with us a wonderful discovery that we are one and the nature is just an extension of ourselves.

But the world thought him “weird” and involved him in a lawsuit after lawsuit for its personal gain. And he didn’t have the time and strength to finish that song.

By now everybody already knows that the judge dismissed Wade Robson’s creditor’s claim against the Estate for reasons that it was filed too late and Robson’s lawyers’ reference to “equitable estoppel” did not apply.

Judge Mitchell Beckloff’s ruling came on May 26, 2015 and to be honest it didn’t seem to me reason enough for too much elation as it was a well-expected outcome – it couldn’t be any different if the judge just followed the law and created no precedents specially for Robson.

And the judge did follow the law and created no precedent specially for Robson, and the only question here is why it took him two years to make a decision which was expected of him anyway. The only plausible explanation here is that the judge studied the case inside out, so no one can say now that he treated the matter superficially.

Some circumstances around Robson’s claim and some facts in the judge’s ruling seemed interesting to me and this is what I would like to share with you in this post.

If you want to read the ruling here is a link to the full text. If you want a concise summary of it you are invited to DailyMichael.com.

And I will limit myself to just a couple of notes.

NOTES 

1) The reaction of Robson’s lawyer Maryann Marzano (Gradstein & Marzano) was that the ruling is going to be appealed and the civil lawsuit filed by Robson against Michael Jackson’s corporations still holds. The same is true for Safechuck’s two cases (probate and civil), so all in all three cases still remain.

This brings us to the following package of lawsuits that will keep everyone busy for the next few years:

• Robson probate claim against MJ/MJ Estate – dismissed (to be appealed)
• Safechuck probate claim against MJ/MJ Estate – ongoing. Next hearing is set for July 21 2015
• Robson civil case against MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures – ongoing. Next hearing is June 30 2015
• Safechuck civil case against MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures – ongoing

Some people wonder who is funding so massive an amount of work and for almost two years too and are hinting at a benefactor behind Robson/Safechuck. Others think that the job of their legal attorneys is contingency-based (this is when lawyers are not paid and get a percentage of the settlement if they win the case).

It may be either way, but if the appeal mentioned by Maryann Marzano indeed takes place the payment situation around this litigation will become much clearer. Appeals are never done on a free-of-charge basis – it is expensive business and requires a lot of funds, so if it comes to that stage the question about a sponsor behind the two not-so-wealthy guys will get a definite answer and it will only remain to find out who this entity is.

Let us never allow this point to escape our attention and proceed to another Marzano’s statement.

2) Besides her ritual exclamations about the horrible Michael Jackson and calling him names Marzano also thought it necessary to note that Beckloff’s ruling “did not make any determination about whether Robson’s allegations were factual”.

Same as the exclamations this remark was totally unnecessary for a professional lawyer as it only misled the public into thinking that the judge was supposed to make such a determination – however nothing of the kind was even expected of the judge. He was handling a probate creditor’s case and his job was to decide whether Robson had or had no right to file a late claim if it exceeded all possible statutes of limitations.

After reading the judge’s ruling I now see a very valid reason for such statutes – the collection of all creditor’s claims takes place within a certain period of time and then stops to make the distribution of the decedent’s assets expeditious and avoid a situation when there is a need to redistribute them once again if some stale claim arrives years later. Otherwise the redistribution process will never end and may even involve litigation among the “distributees” of the estate (those who have already received their share).

Citing several cases the judge said about it:

• “Probate Code section 9000 et seq. operate to ensure that stale creditors‘ claims will not be presented years later.” (..) As noted earlier, the Probate Code’s claim statutes are designed to prevent stale claims and promote “expeditious distribution of the assets of a decedent’s estate.” (…) Plaintiff’s position would open probate estate administration to substantial uncertainty and possible delay as well as the potential for litigation against distributees of an estate.

Robson’s supporters play a naïve card and claim that he was late with his claim because he is a lay-person who genuinely didn’t understand a distinction between the “administration” of the Estate and the Estate itself.

Well, I don’t know what the “administration” of the Estate means either (possibly collection of all creditor’s claims), but in a situation when all media were screaming about Michael’s debts and creditors were lining up to the Estate with their demands for money, it was impossible not to notice that the Estate was administering those matters. And if it wasn’t the Estate, then who was?  Katherine Jackson or Joe?

3) Another point promoted by Robson’s supporters is that he did not realize that it was possible to make a claim against the Estate until it was explained to him by his lawyer.

This sounds plausible enough, however the judge noted that Probate Code specially focuses on situations like that and says that the 60-day period allowed for making a claim starts not from the moment the claimant learns that he has a cause for legal action, but from the moment he knows/remembers the “fact” that may give rise to a complaint.

According to Robson’s mad version he always knew and remembered that he had been “raped” but he “didn’t know” that it was molestation and realized it only when he spoke to his therapist (May 8, 2012) who was evidently the first to explain it to the poor guy.

The judge’s ruling says that this was the moment when Robson officially “knew” of the “fact” and this is all that matters here:

• Undisputed fact 30 establishes that plaintiff knew of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim no later than May 8, 2012. (This is the date that plaintiff disclosed the alleged sexual abuse to another person, his therapist. Probate Code section 9103, subd. (a) (2)’s focus is on knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim, not knowledge that the creditor has a cause of action. As acknowledged by plaintiff in these proceedings, plaintiff’s claim is not one involving repressed memory.)

Same as the judge I will not analyze here the essence of Robson’s story and will just say that after his sensational self-discovery he still had two months for consulting a lawyer and finding out whether he could file a claim.

If we regard May 8, 2012 as a starting moment for his knowledge of the “fact”, the deadline for making a claim would be July 7, 2012. The judge said about it:

• July 7, 2012 is the date on which 60 days would have run from the time that plaintiff had knowledge of (1) the administration of the estate and (2) the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim. (This finding is based on the undisputed facts set forth above.)

In their court documents Robson’s lawyers argued that they did follow the 60 days rule, only they were calculating it from the date when Robson consulted a lawyer (and not knowing the “fact”) and according to Robson it was March 4, 2013:

.

And it is at this point that we learn that Robson lied not only about his so-called molestation by MJ, but also about the time he sought legal advice for the first time.

The judge’s ruling disclosed an extraordinary fact previously unknown to us. This fact leads us to believe that Robson contacted lawyers (not necessarily Granstein & Marzano) and began planning legal action against MJ’s Estate much earlier than March 4, 2013 – at least in the summer of 2012.

And please don’t take this piece of news lightly – you can’t even imagine how important it is.

THE EMAIL

The judge’s ruling quotes a certain email sent by Robson on September 7, 2012 to over 30 people referring to some “very personal information”, “truth of his past” and an “extremely sensitive legal matter”.

The text of this email is unavailable to us but the reason for sending it to so many people is obvious – the email looks like a signal to Robson’s inner circle to “stop talking” as an extremely sensitive legal matter is on the way.

It is also quite possible that it was after this email that his mother took off for Australia and his sister started selling out her MJ memorabilia on the web – it was already in September 2012 that Robson’s plan began to be implemented.

The discovery of this email was a huge blow to Robson’s official story and this is why some commenters were surprised that Robson mentioned that email himself.

There is no reason for surprise, guys. Judging by the time of his comment (March 31, 2015) at that moment Robson already knew that his email was in possession of the other side and this forced him to give at least some explanation to it – naturally withholding the most essential part of the text.

The email was mentioned on March 31, 2015 in an article that provided the following timeline for Robson’s fairy tale:

Robson says his first of two nervous breakdowns occurred in April 2011, causing him to withdraw from a film project and begin seeking psychological help. “But I did not mention the sexual abuse because at that time I still did not see it as such,” Robson states in his court papers.

A second breakdown in March 2012 was a turning point, he says. “As with my first breakdown, I experienced stress, anxiety, fear and depression,” Robson says. “I also began to imagine my son being subjected to the same sort of sexual acts I had been forced to commit with Jackson, and for the first time in my life I thought I might need to talk to someone about what Jackson and I had done together.”

Robson says he sent an email to friends and family members in September 2012 concerning what he called a “transformational time” in his life.  “In the email, I wanted to let my friends and family members known what was happening in my life at that point in time.”

Robson says he explained to the readers of his email “what was going on so they would not be worried about me.” He says he asked them to keep what he was revealing confidential, knowing that anything about him and Jackson was newsworthy in the tabloids.

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2015/03/31/dancer-claims-michael-jackson-molested-led-him-to-nervous-breakdown/

The essential part of the story withheld by Robson is that already on September 7, 2012 he was planning legal action. This fact becomes known to us not from the article, but from the judge’s ruling who quoted the email.

The matter being legal and the number of people he informed about it are the key issues here. “Legal” means that before sending out that email Robson had already sought legal counsel as without professional advice he wouldn’t have known whether litigation was possible at all, considering the statutes of limitation, etc.

And the huge number of people he informed means that the campaign was planned in full seriousness – his inner circle of friends and relatives could damage his plans by telling the innocent truth about Jackson, and this is why all of them were requested to keep silence.

The additional information provided to us by that article is that Robson was stepping into a transformational time in his life.

All of it makes it absolutely clear that in September 2012 Robson was ready for his “transformations”, was setting ground for them inside his inner circle and was already planning legal action against the MJ Estate.

But what’s important for us is not that important for the Probate code. The only thing Probate Code section 9103, subd. (a) (2) requires for starting the 60 days period within which the claim could be made is the moment when Robson officially “knew” that he had something to complain about.

And he knew it again (for the second time) on September 7, 2012 and if we take it for a new starting point the new deadline for filing the claim would be early November 2012 – however even that second deadline was missed by Robson as he filed his claim only half a year later.

Missing the second deadline was one of the reasons for throwing Robson’s claim by the judge:

• “See undisputed fact 31 wherein plaintiff references sharing his “very personal information,” “extremely sensitive legal matter,” and “truth of [his] past” with over 30 individuals. This email, sent on September 7, 2012, further suggests plaintiff had knowledge of the facts “reasonably giving rise to the existence of (the claim” (“extremely sensitive legal matter”) by sometime prior to the email date, September 7, 2012.
• Using the September date as the date by which plaintiff first had knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim, plaintiff would have been required to file his claim in the Probate case in early November 2012 to satisfy the late creditor claims statute.
• Again, while knowledge that plaintiff had a cause of action is not the relevant inquiry under Probate Code section 9103, subd. (a)(2), it appears — although it is not clear – that plaintiff understood he had a cause of action against the decedent no later than September 7, 2012.
• Plaintiff did not file this petition to file a late claim until May 1, 2013. His claim is late and plaintiff is not permitted to file a late claim in this Probate case under Probate Code section 9103, the statute that addresses late claims. His claim is barred as it was filed 8 to 10 months after the relevant statutory deadline.”  https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/16e893f7-cb8d-488b-9b09-d35207848ae7

Now that we know the real timeline of Robson’s activities every normal person will wonder why, after mentioning a legal matter already in September 2012, Robson still waited and to a terrible detriment to his own case too?

Indeed, the real surprise of the judge’s ruling is not the dismissal of Robson’s creditor’s claim, but the discovery that even after seeking legal advice and evidently receiving all information about the statute of limitations and the need to file within 60 days, Robson made his complaint so late that even for technical reasons alone it didn’t have any chance to go forward.

Initially this point was not clear to us because everyone thought that Robson consulted his lawyers on March 4, 2013. However now that we know his real timeline, all this waiting looks extremely strange.

He sought legal advice sometime in summer 2012, informed his friends and relatives of the upcoming legal matter and then waited for another 8 months? And started acting only when his chances of winning the case were reduced to zero???

There must be some explanation for this absurdity and it is extremely important to find it.

ROBSON’S LAWYERS EXPLAIN

The explanations were given by Robson’s lawyers after his lie (about the first time he sought legal counsel) had been uncovered.

The lie was most probably revealed to the judge when the Estate lawyers filed a motion for summary judgment more than a month ago, on April 21, 2015. It was evidently at that moment that Ms. Marzano had to rearrange her story and find an explanation for the 8 months of Robson’s silence after his initial plans to start a legal case.

Now she agrees that there was a delay, only it was due to Robson’s “psychological condition” – her client was “brainwashed” by Jackson and even “scared” of him, you know.

The story published on May 27, 2015 (after the judge’s ruling) explained it as follows:

Maryann Marzano, indicated in court last month that although the case was filed past California’s statute of limitations for a creditor’s claim, her client experienced brainwashing, which ultimately held him back from filing in time.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2124227/michael-jackson-victory-court-dismisses-wade-robson-lawsuit/#tKkQ5bEYvZQ651Sx.99

When questioned why it took him another year after his therapy session to come forward, Robson insisted that he was still scared of Jackson, even though the King of Pop passed away in 2009.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2037882/michael-jackson-update-judge-to-rule-on-molestation-case-within-days/

The matter of “fear” was handled and rejected by the judge in the equitable estoppel part of his ruling – Michael was physically unable to threaten Robson for four years after his death, and the Estate never scared Robson either, but offered him a job instead, which he himself refused as far as I remember.

As to that “brainwashing” issue the detail which is now added by Robson’s lawyers to this generally standard argument of all liars is that Robson believed it to be “consensual”.

The so-called rape was consensual???

Marzano argued Robson’s case illustrates that there was no “ah, ha” moment for her client and that until he received therapy and realized he was molested by Jackson, he could not do anything sooner because he had been “brainwashed into believing it was consensual.”

http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2015/05/27/dancer-allegedly-molested-by-michael-jackson-cant-file-claim-judge-rules/

Robson’s web supporters are also clamoring that he thought that “the abuse was love” and he even “liked it” and “this is why he was so ashamed to admit it”.

Let me say it outright that with real victims of abuse this may indeed happen, only they never speak in support of their abusers under oath in court and never say that they were not even touched as Robson said in his testimony in 2005.

And it is especially hard to imagine that an alleged victim of rape will volunteer to lie for his alleged abuser and will still feel at ease when telling his lies in court, and with a hundred people watching him do it.

Another huge obstacle to Robson’s “psychological condition” version is that the timeline of his actions does not in the least support his story.

I, for one, cannot imagine that knowing of all deadlines a nervous, stressed-out and fearful former victim of abuse will wait so long for filing his claim that he will finally do it when the chances of his case turn zero.

Whatever psychological condition you are in, it will become only worse if you know that you are filing too late and for this reason alone your case will be tossed out and it is a doomed venture from the start of it.

What’s the point of filing a claim when you know that it won’t take you anywhere and all your “shame” will be uncovered in vain?

NOOOO, you will either hurry up to make a claim within the time allowed for it by law or you will not file at all, because filing when it is too late and hopeless is simply absurd. And let me remind you that Robson still had two whole months for making a complaint after he already announced to his inner circle that there was legal action on the way.

But despite that Robson still waited from September 2012 to May 2013, to the detriment of his own case and knowing that after missing all deadlines even trying would be useless, unless the judge agreed to create a precedent for him of course.

This seemingly absurd timeline means that Robson had a big reason for waiting, or/and he didn’t want to win the case, and his goal was a different one.

THE BIG REASON FOR WAITING

In my opinion the real reason why Robson waited for so long was because he was kept in a standby mode.

He was waiting for something to happen (or not to happen) and it was only after a certain event took place that his participation and efforts were required. And the goal of his complaint was actually not so much to win the case in court, but utterly demolish Jackson’s reputation.

This hypothesis makes us look at other events taking place at the time of Robson’s budding story and search for those who might be interested in keeping Robson on standby. And if you look around you will notice that the event forming a background for Robson’s “transformational” period in life was a lawsuit filed by Katherine Jackson against AEG Live.

Why do I mention AEG again? Because there was no other more or less meaningful case connected with Michael Jackson taking place right at that time and running parallel to Robson’s story-in-wait.

If their parallel cases were not a coincidence and AEG did pay to Robson for making allegations against Michael, the big reason for Robson’s waiting could be his dependence on whether the AEG case went to trial or not, and in case it did his allegations were to be used as a “final” argument against MJ.

If this hypothesis is correct then Robson’s standby mode means that his participation in the project was optional and his efforts were required only in case all other opportunities for tossing out Katherine Jackson’s claim were exhausted.

However the AEG case did go to trial and when the prospect of losing $1.5 billion became too real Robson’s so-called “molestation” story came into play and was used as the deadliest argument possible to extinguish the opponent.

Please note that I am not justifying AEG Live or Robson in the least – all I am trying to explain is the possible motive for their actions and the reason why Robson was waiting.

To be fair to AEG, coincidences do happen in life and therefore it would be absolutely not enough to make conclusions solely on the grounds that the two cases were running parallel to each other.

To find real proof we need to check whether the progress of Robson’s case depended on the progress of AEG’s case, and find certain correlations between the crucial turns in the AEG case and the steps taken (or not taken) by Wade Robson right at the same time.

If these correlations are found, the chances that Robson’s allegations were instigated by AEG Live will be very high.

And you know what? I did look it up and found a lot of correlations, only they began not at once, but at about March 2012. Prior to that moment the events developed with no noticeable connection with each other, however afterwards the rainfall of coincidences began to drop, then rain and then pour.

“COINCIDENCES”

In terms of coincidences the year 2011 was uneventful:

On February 24, 2011 judge Yvette Palazuelos rejected AEG’s request to dismiss Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit and allowed it to proceed.

At the same time, in February 2011 Wade Robson was in negotiations with the Estate about his direction of the Immortal show. Later he said that in April 2011 he had the first breakdown but didn’t realize that it was connected with his so-called “sexual abuse”.

On June 1st, 2011 the judge scheduled the tentative date of the AEG trial for September 10, 2012.

In July 2011 Robson was still heard saying that he would be directing the Immortal show.

In autumn 2011 Conrad Murray’s trial took place and on November 7, 2011 he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Michael Jackson’s death.

In 2012 the first coincidences began to occur:

On March 26, 2012 Katherine Jackson’s lawyers filed their first amended complaint and asked for a jury trial. Their request was granted.

It was also in March that Robson had his so-called “second breakdown”. He described it as a “turning point” when he decided for the first time to “talk to someone about him and MJ”.

In May AEG Live asked the judge to postpone the trial by seven months, from September 2012 to April the following year. The reason cited by the AEG lawyers was that they needed more time to prepare their case due to its complexity.  I looked up the LA Superior Court records for the Katherine Jackson vs AEG case (No. BC445597) and found that the exact date for the AEG Live postponement request was May 9, 2012.

And this is when a really meaningful coincidence took place. The day prior to that, on May 8, 2012 Robson approached a therapist and told the story of his alleged abuse for the first time.

Coincidence or not, but by the first trial date in September 2012 Robson would have not made it – his story was still to be elaborated on, legal papers to be prepared, the condo to be sold, real abuse victims to be contacted for studying their experience, etc. etc. In short a lot was to be done, and surprisingly, it was exactly at that moment that AEG said they “needed more time to prepare their case”.

Several months later a much more important coincidence took place.

In early September 2012 the LA Times obtained a package of 120 emails between the AEG Live executives and quoted some of them in their article. The quotations were few but even this was enough to show that AEG knew of Michael’s poor condition weeks before his death but still pushed him to perform 50 concerts and intensely rehearse (a demand they didn’t even have the right to make). The emails made a row in the press and produced a negative impression on the public as they contradicted AEG’s official story that “everything was fine”.

The situation with those emails is best described in the article below dated September 3, 2012. Here are some quotes from it:

September 3rd, 2012, 14:28 GMT · By Elena Gorgan

Besides confirming that AEG was always in the know about Michael’s poor condition,  the series of emails also reveal a much sadder truth: they knew and still pushed him on and on, until he could no more.

Not even when Kenny Ortega, who had worked with him for 20 years, and was in charge of the show tried to sound the alarm, did they listen.

“There are strong signs of paranoia, anxiety and obsessive-like behavior. I think the very best thing we can do is get a top Psychiatrist in to evaluate him ASAP,” he wrote in another message, trying to get Michael some help.

He was told to do his job and not turn into a psychiatrist when none was needed.

That was Michael’s final week. Summoned for one last time and urged not to miss any more rehearsals or face financial hell for breach of contract, he gave it his best for 2 days in a row, and then asked Murray to help him sleep. He, in turn, pumped his body full of drugs and killed him.

“Michael’s death is a terrible tragedy, but life must go on. AEG will make a fortune from merch sales, ticket retention, the touring exhibition and the film/dvd,” Phillips wrote to a colleague in August 2009.

Full text: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Leaked-Emails-Reveal-Michael-Jackson-s-Sad-Condition-Before-Comeback-Shows-289766.shtml

When the emails were leaked the AEG officials were said to be “livid with rage” and on September 4, 2012 their attorneys filed a motion for monetary sanctions against the Jacksons whom they considered responsible for the leak. The fright was so big that the AEG lawyers insisted that the emails should be banned from trial.

The AEG motion was denied and their case suffered a huge setback – the emails showed the AEG executives the cold and ruthless liars they really are, and seeing that the public opinion shifted in favor of Michael Jackson and the sympathies of the majority were on the side of his family, some drastic measures had to be taken to reverse the trend and put a stop to any further sympathy for Jackson.

And what is a better method than accuse him of pedophilia? The method is a well-proven one and was tried at least twice during Michael’s lifetime, and the third accusation could deliver a lethal blow to his reputation, especially since he was not here to defend himself. Even if the accusation was bogus and the case was tossed out all the necessary damage would still be done through bad publicity and a horrible trashing of his name in the press.

It is one thing to be involved in the death of a legend and be stigmatized for life because of that, and it is totally different thing if the decedent was a criminal no one will ever be sorry about … see my point?

It is an incredible coincidence, but from judge Beckloff’s ruling we now know that it was exactly in the midst of the AEG email scandal that Robson suddenly informed his friends and relatives that he had an “extremely sensitive legal matter” at hand and he was entering a “transformational” period of his life.

Indeed, the AEG scandal broke out on September 2, 2012 and Robson’s email was on September 7, 2012, so right after AEG realized that their chances had greatly diminished, Robson’s project received a powerful push and Robson told his family and friends to get themselves ready for a legal marathon.

So what was essentially a turning point in the AEG case was also a turning point in Robson’s case.

However at that moment it was yet unclear whether the AEG case would go forward and reach the stage of a trial. There were some other possibilities for AEG and one of them was the same that was recently taken by the Estate lawyers – a motion for summary judgment that can stop the case without taking it to a trial (summary judgment is used to show to the judge that there is actually no case).

On November 30, 2012 AEG’s lawyers filed a summary judgment motion asking to dismiss the entire lawsuit.

It took three months for the judge to think it over and on February 27, 2013 she finally issued her order – all Katherine Jackson’s claims except one were tossed out, however one claim (that AEG were negligent in hiring the doctor) was allowed to go to trial.

But even at this stage the case could still be thrown out – if the Appellate court reversed the judge’s decision.  So around March 15, 2013 the AEG lawyers filed legal documents with the Court of Appeal in California to dismiss that one remaining claim.

As an added argument against Katherine’s lawsuit their documents to the appellate court stated the wrong sum of $40 billion allegedly demanded by her from AEG Live. The wrong sum hit the press and created an ocean of ridicule and scorn for the Jackson family. In the meantime Marvin Putnam, attorney for AEG said that he was “confident that the courts of this state will find the law does not allow Mrs. Jackson’s claim. Any other outcome would wreak havoc on California’s business community.”

However on March 21, 2013 the appeal was denied and the case went forward. The jury selection was to start about two weeks later, on April 2.

You won’t believe it but after staying in a seemingly limbo state for almost half a year, it was at that very moment that Robson resurfaced again and exactly on March 21. This is the date when put his condo on sale in order to move to Hawaii thus making another serious step toward “transformation” of his life.

And again, Robson took that decision on a day which was a big turning point in AEG’s case – as soon as the AEG trial became imminent Robson suddenly decided to leave.

Robson’s condo sold

The listed price of his condo was $789,000.

There were several offers but the one that was accepted by Robson was $36,000 more than the asking price, thus bringing the sale price to $825,000.

The offer arrived on April 29, 2013, and by pure coincidence (of course) it was the day that the AEG trial started with its opening statements.

The sale of Robson’s condo is listed in the sale records of the estate agency as a tenancy-in-common deal which is explained by the agency as an “arrangement where two or more people, related or not, hold joint ownership of a home.”

Interesting, but the fact that the condo was bought by several individuals and for a sum above the market price corresponds very well with other people’s suppositions about that sale found on the web. So it isn’t only me who thinks that someone helped Robson to sell and relocate to Havaii:

• The timeline says it all, doesn’t it? I bet following the trail to the “real” purchasers, we’ll find a sponsor/backer. It’s all too convenient and coincidental. I’d expect the purchaser to be a trust of some sort to hide the true identity of the buyer. I think once the paperwork is filed with the state that gets published–not sure when, tho.
• Yeah, I think you’re right that the owner will be some sort of trust if this timing “coincidence” isn’t really a coincidence. Not sure how easy it will be to find, though. In my home state, you can easily look up who owns what property, free of charge. In Los Angeles County, the tax records that show owners seem to be available only for a huge fee, and you have to write in an application to LA County to get access. This is probably to ward off celebrity stalkers or something.

http://www.positivelymichael.com/forums/showthread.php?39483-Wade-Robson-Claim/page29

But the most incredible coincidence took place two days later, on May 1, 2013 when Robson suddenly made his allegations against MJ and it happened just a couple of days after the opening of the AEG trial on April 29.

Can you imagine that the previous summer he decided to file a claim against a deceased person, but then kept it on hold for another 8 months missing all deadlines, and then decided to still complain when it was already useless – and it accidentally coincided with opening a trial against the company considered more or less responsible for the death of that person?  

When you try to imagine it you understand that there is something terribly wrong about coincidences like that.

While everyone was talking about the horrible Michael Jackson instead of the company that in this or that way contributed to Michael’s death, Robson was finalizing the matter with his condo. TMZ reported that he “closed escrow” on May 8th.

Sale records for Robson’s condo from https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/925-14th-St-90403/unit-16/home/6772367

“Closing escrow” means that the money was paid to the seller through an escrow agent who held the seller’s documents until the buyers transferred money to the agent who then forwarded it to the seller.

Such deals are common, and the only uncommon thing about Robson’s deal was that the period between the contract date (April 29) and the closing date (May 8) was short.

One commenter said that “the process of getting to closing is complicated, typically requiring a title search, property inspection, property appraisal, mortgage approval, and all sorts of other paperwork. The only ways that a closing can come so soon after a contract are (1) the buyer was pre-approved for the mortgage before executing the contract OR (2) the sale was a cash transaction, not requiring a mortgage loan”.

So either those several individuals in a tenancy-in-common deal were all pre-approved for the mortgage, or Robson received cash.

TMZ was uncharacteristically ironic about that sale:

Wade Robson Skipping Town After Filing MJ Molestation Claim

5/13/2013 5:00 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Can’t believe that “good riddance” was said to Robson by TMZ. They definitely know something that we don’t

Wade Robson’s wasting no time hightailing it out of L.A. after alleging Michael Jackson molested him — he just unloaded his Santa Monica condo — and is leaving Cali for good.

Wade listed the condo March 21 for $789,000 and closed escrow May 8. And get this — he scored more than the asking price — $825,000.

It’s not an outlandish leap to think the timing isn’t coincidental. We broke the story this week … Wade filed a creditor’s claim against MJ’s estate May 1 … claiming the King of Pop molested him over a 7-year period when he was a kid.

Sources tell us, Wade, his wife and son plan to lay down roots in the Aloha state … where his wife grew up.
Check out the condo and all its amenities.  Repressed memories not included.

http://www.tmz.com/2013/05/13/wade-robson-michael-jackson-sells-la-condo/

Well, if even TMZ says that “it’s not an outlandish leap to think the timing isn’t coincidental” then my supposition of a correlation between the developments in the AEG case and the corresponding changes in Robson’s behavior are not that outlandish at all.

Indeed, each time the AEG case took an important turn, it was as if by some miracle that Robson echoed it with a certain action on his part.

Here it is once again in case you forgot:

• March 26, 2012 – Katherine’s lawyers ask for a jury trial.
• March 2012 – Robson has a second breakdown described by him as a “turning point”.

• May 8, 2012 – Robson discloses his alleged abuse to a therapist.
• May 9, 2012 – AEG lawyers ask for a postponement of the trial until next year as “they need more time to prepare their case”.

• September 2, 2012 – AEG emails are leaked to the press making AEG “livid with rage” and sending them to seek punishment for the Jackson family.
• September 7, 2012 – Robson sends an email to over 30 people warning them of a certain transformation in his life and a highly sensitive legal matter being on the way.

• November 2012 – end of February 2013 – the judge is looking into the AEG motion for summary judgment and finally allows one claim to go forward.
• Same period or even longer (six months from September 2012) – nothing is heard of Robson and his actions.

• March 21, 2013 – the AEG appeal for a dismissal of Katherine Jackson’s case is declined. Now the case will go to trial.
• Same day, March 21, 2013 – Robson puts his condo on sale.

• April 29, 2013 – the AEG trial opens
• May 1, 2013 – Robson files a creditor’s claim against the Estate citing “molestation” twenty years ago as a reason for his claiming money. “He always remembered that it was rape but only now realized it was molestation”.
• On May 8th Robson closes the deal for his condo and approximately a week later is spotted in Hawaii.  On May 10th he files a civil claim against the MJ corporations.

The above timeline is a good illustration why Robson waited with making his complaint, and why his activity came in fits and starts, and why he missed all deadlines even after deciding to take legal action in September 2012.

It looks like he wasn’t his own master and following the initial agreement to smear MJ (apparently for a very good reward) he had to wait for the outcome of the AEG preliminary court proceedings. He depended on the way their situation was developing and this is why was missing deadline after deadline to the detriment of his own case.

The paradox is that the same supposition means that involving Robson in their project was optional for AEG too, and if it had not come to a trial stage they would have probably not used his fraudulent molestation story as the heaviest “argument” against Jackson.

Or they could have still used it (it depends on the degree of their villainy) as a sort of a final touch to their story, so that no one feels sorry about Michael Jackson’s death.

All of it absolutely does not mean that the trial shouldn’t have taken place – that case was a complete must, only it should have been handled in a different way.

DISPOSITION OF FORCES NOW

When I ask myself if I believe that two years after those events a certain corporation may be still funding the two frivolous “molestation” cases that are dragging on and on, my honest answer will be no, I don’t believe it very much.

They could have paid to Robson for taking part in the scam and could have even added Safechuck to bolster his case, but paying to their lawyers for two years on a regular basis and for the future appeals too?

No, this would require of them too much dedicated hatred towards Jackson (of which I am not sure), and secondly, the owner of AEG Live is stingy (Tim Leiweke called him a “paranoid scrooge”), so he would probably not be too willing to sponsor the project until the end of his life.

Sometimes people engage themselves in adventurous projects hoping to get a quick result, but when the plan acquires a tendency for dragging, they may be unwilling to go on, especially when their own immediate goal of winning the case has been achieved and the services rendered by their partner have already been paid for.

In cases like that the partner may be left on his own and have to deal with the consequences of his actions all by himself.

Of course, the present participation of this corporation in Robson/Safechuck case cannot be ruled out, but a more likely scenario is that those who always hated Michael Jackson saw here an opportunity for themselves and it is they who are now supporting the two rogues  – either financially or by giving publicity to their cases, which is actually a key method when it comes to extorting money and smearing someone’s name.

In a “cooperation” like this each side is pursuing its own goal – Robson/Safechuck and their lawyers want a settlement, and those who have steadily worked against Michael since 1993 want to do away with Michael’s legacy and as an ultimate goal ruin his Estate.

Funny, but in a disposition like this it may turn out that Robson/Safechuck’s lawyers may indeed be working on a contingency basis, at least at the moment. The lawyers should not necessarily be involved in the scam – they may be doing it for the sake of their own publicity, and since they have already invested so much effort in this case there is no other way for them but move forward and fight tooth and nail to win a settlement. Otherwise it will be a colossal loss for them in terms of money and reputation.

The remaining parties are the poor Michael Jackson who is continued to be heavily trashed in this sad saga, and the two liars who have voluntarily put themselves in a situation which deserves scorn and ridicule from whichever side you look at it.

Robson, for example, will have to explain now why he waited for 8 months with filing his claim and did it only when it became totally useless, and in doing so he is facing a fantastic prospect of having to say that he was not only “raped” but he also “enjoyed it” and it was due to his “shame” that it took him so long to admit it.

I wonder if the money paid to him is worth all this humiliation, in addition to the stigma of a liar he will carry for the rest of his life.  After all one day his own son will learn how his father supposedly lied under oath in court and will read how much he “liked anal sex” and no remonstrations from his father that it never happened will ever help.

When will liars understand that the truth will become known anyway and it is ultimately them who will suffer most?

The way the media reacts to the 10th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s full court acquittal is disgusting.

You will ask what their reaction is?

Their reaction is that there is no reaction. They simply pretend that it never happened and there is much more important news to report – for example, which stars spent millions on their wedding rings this year.

In 2010 Charles Thomson wrote a brilliant article about the shameful media coverage of Michael Jackson’s trial where he analyzed piece by piece both the trial and the industry-wide magnitude of the media failings in reporting it. He also reflected on how all of it would be remembered in the future:

It is difficult to know how history will remember the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps as the epitome of western celebrity obsession. Perhaps as a 21st century lynching. Personally, I think it will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history.

Charles Thomson thought that it would be remembered.

But only five years later, on the 10^th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s acquittal, the whole thing is already forgotten or is thoroughly ignored. My recent web search for at least some comments from the media people brought a nearly zero result – with one exception though.

Showbiz411 rightfully called the trial of Michael Jackson OUTRAGEOUS RAILROADING. All honest people will agree

It was only Roger Friedman who commemorated the event by calling it “outrageous railroading” (a description all honest people will agree with) and writing an article that spoke of Michael Jackson’s malicious prosecution and said that it was the trial that eventually killed him.

All the rest of the media fully ignored the tenth anniversary of Michael’s acquittal and their totally disgraceful behavior before, during and after the trial.

In case you forgot it here are some excerpts from Charles Thomson’s article to remind you what it was like:

Newspapers reacted just as hysterically as TV stations. ‘Sicko!’ shrieked the New York Daily News. ‘Jacko: Now Get Out Of This One’ goaded the New York Post.

The Sun – Britain’s biggest newspaper – ran an article titled ‘He’s Bad, He’s Dangerous, He’s History’. The piece branded Jackson an ‘ex-black ex-superstar’, a ‘freak’ and a ‘twisted individual’ and called for his children to be taken into care.

….While the media was busy badgering a host of quacks and distant acquaintances for their views on the scandal, the team of prosecutors behind the latest Jackson case was engaging in some highly questionable behavior – but the media didn’t seem to care.

For instance, when the DA found out about two taped interviews in which the entire Arvizo family sang Jackson’s praises and denied any abuse, he introduced a conspiracy charge and claimed they’d been forced to lie against their will.

In a similar instance, Jackson’s lawyer Mark Geragos appeared on NBC in January 2004 and announced that the singer had a ‘concrete, iron-clad alibi’ for the dates on the charge sheet. By the time Jackson was re-arraigned in April for the conspiracy charge, the molestation dates on the rap sheet had been shifted by almost two weeks.

Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis.

….Instead of stories about Gavin Arvizo’s lies and the two brothers’ contradictory allegations, newspaper pages were filled with snarky opinion pieces about Jackson’s pajamas, even though ‘pajama day’ had been days previously. Thousands of words were dedicated to whether or not Jackson wore a wig and the Sun even ran an article attacking Jackson for the accessories he pinned to his waistcoats every day. It seemed like the press would write anything to avoid discussing the boy’s cross examination, which severely undermined the prosecution’s case.

This habit of reporting lurid allegations but ignoring the cross examination which discredited them became a distinct trend throughout Jackson’s trial.

….When the prosecution rested, the media seemed to lose interest in the trial. The defense case was given comparatively little newspaper space and air time. The Hollywood Reporter, which had been diligently reporting on the Jackson trial, missed out two whole weeks of the defense case. The attitude seemed to be that unless the testimony was graphic and salacious – unless it made a good soundbite – it wasn’t worth reporting.

…Thomas Mesereau commented retrospectively that the media had been “almost salivating about having [Jackson] hauled off to jail.”

When the jury delivered 14 ‘not guilty’ verdicts, the media was ‘humiliated’, Mesereau said in a subsequent interview. Media analyst Tim Rutten later commented, “So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors… Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn.”

In a post-verdict news conference Sneddon continued to refer to Gavin Arvizo as a ‘victim’ and said he suspected that the ‘celebrity factor’ had impeded the jury’s judgment – a line many media pundits swiftly appropriated as they set about undermining the jurors and their verdicts.

….The following day on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer upheld the notion that the verdict had been influenced by Jackson’s celebrity status. “Are you sure?” she pleaded. “Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?”

The Washington Post commented, “An acquittal doesn’t clear his name, it only muddies the water.” Both the New York Post and the New York Daily News ran with the snide headline ‘Boy, Oh, Boy!’

….The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny – no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.

….The media did a number on its audience and it did a number on Jackson. After battling his way through an exhausting and horrifying trial, riddled with hideous accusations and character assassinations, Michael Jackson should have felt vindicated when the jury delivered 14 unanimous not guilty verdicts. But the media’s irresponsible coverage of the trial made it impossible for Jackson to ever feel truly vindicated. The legal system may have declared him innocent but the public, on the whole, still thought otherwise. Allegations which were disproven in court went unchallenged in the press. Shaky testimony was presented as fact. The defense’s case was all but ignored.

When asked about those who doubted the verdicts, the jury replied, “They didn’t see what we saw.”

They’re right. We didn’t. But we should have done. And those who refused to tell us remain in their jobs unchecked, unpunished and free to do exactly the same thing to anybody they desire.

Now that’s what I call injustice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

One could imagine that the media are now keeping silence about that disgraceful “episode” because they are ashamed of what they did to Jackson and prefer not to recall their own painful downfall.

Shame? But there is no shame.

Do you know what results I get if I search the browser for the media take on the acquittal by typing “ten years ago Michael Jackson…”? With the exception of some articles by Michael’s fans the results I get from the media are as follows:

• “January 31: 10 years ago Michael Jackson’s molestation trial began”
• “March 12: 10 years ago Michael Jackson’s friends said he was on the brink of suicide”.

These example come from a Daily Express page which is specially dedicated to “looking back at the last 100 years, 50 years and 25 years and bringing you what happened on this day in history”. The UK Daily Express evidently thinks that the above are the only two newsworthy events concerning Jackson that took place ten years ago and should go down into history now.

And no matter how hard you try to find a similar reminder from them about June 13 being the day when 10 years ago Michael Jackson was acquitted on all fourteen counts, you won’t get any trace of it. At least I wasn’t able to find it.

If you read the media history records of this type you will never know how and when the trial ended or whether it ended at all.

Actually the above is a reflection of a true situation around Michael Jackson. His fans still remember and rejoice that ten years ago the justice system and 12 honest people fully acquitted him, and that the team of lawyers led by a man of great integrity Thomas Mesereau saved Michael from an imminent death in prison (and prolonged his life by four more years), but as regards the media they hardly remember it, and it even looks like for them the trial has not ended.

The trial is indeed going on – at least for the media and those standing behind this never-ending anti-MJ campaign as all its key players, except Sneddon who left us for natural reasons, are still doing their customary job of smearing Michael’s name and destroying his legacy on a regular basis.

Now these people are busy spreading new fabricated stories about Jackson and same as the previous time (with the Arvizos) they never check them – they simply repeat what some scumbags say savoring every detail of their lurid tales.

These days it is called reporting.

This is why Roger Friedman’s lonely article remembering Michael’s acquittal in this desert of media oblivion is so valuable to us – it is not free from some misconceptions but at least he remembers it, and remembers it right.

Michael Jackson: 10 Years Since The Court Acquittal That Eventually Killed Him

by Roger Friedman – June 12, 2015 1:28 pm

Ten years ago tomorrow a jury in Santa Maria, California acquitted mega pop star  Michael Jackson of child molestation and conspiracy. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon charged Michael with molesting Garvin Arvizo and then kidnapping Gavin’s family– his mother, brother, and sister. Attorney Thomas Mesereau mounted a brilliant defense and Michael, after four months, was acquitted.

But the damage was done. Michael had sat through weeks and weeks of crazy testimony and accusations. His entire life was laid open– his finances, his personal peccadilloes, relationships with every single person he ever knew, descriptions of his body parts. His mother and sometimes his father, or a sibling, sat in the row behind him. They heard it all. Everything was on the record for his child one day to read.

By the time the jury reached their verdict, Jackson was destroyed. There was no jubilant celebration. He was done. He took his kids and left California. Mesereau advised him, “Leave here now.” Why? He knew, as did I, and every reasonable person who’d watched this circus since Jackson’s arrest in November 2003, that Sneddon had it in for him. Sneddon was not going to stop until he somehow put Michael Jackson in jail. If Michael stayed at Neverland, in Santa Barbara County, he would always be a target.

Sneddon’s vendetta against Jackson reached back a decade, to when Michael agreed to a financial settlement with the family of another boy, Jordan Chandler. It was the worst decision that Michael ever made. It created an aura around him of a pedophile, one that he couldn’t shake. It made him a target for more extortion. It turned him into a real drug addict who couldn’t always make other, clear decisions. Eventually, it would kill him.

What was the upside of the Chandler settlement? To the lawyers and advisers, it kept Michael out of jail and court in 1994. Sneddon couldn’t prosecute Michael without the Chandlers. Sneddon was defeated before he could make his case. Jackson, Sneddon felt, danced away. Instead of leaving it alone, Jackson mocked Sneddon publicly in song, taunted him. And Sneddon vowed revenge.

There are just a couple of things you need to know about that trial. Gavin Arvizo’s mother, proved in court to be a scammer and a schemer, was crazy. Sneddon found in her a perfect collaborator. She said and did whatever he wanted. It didn’t matter that her so called “kidnappers” had a full record of their time with her including receipts for spa treatments, movie dates, fast food restaurant meals and shopping safaris. When those guys — Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen– came to me in 2004 with a huge metal briefcase filled with records of what had gone on, the first thing I remember saying to them was, “Are you sure the Arvizos didn’t kidnap you?”

I was joking, but that’s really what had happened. Gavin Arvizo had cancer. His mother, Janet, used the cancer as leverage to worm her way into Michael’s life. Michael Jackson was naive about one thing since his “We are the World” hit project– that he could save the world, and “save the children who are destined to die,” as Marvin Gaye once sang. Michael, after selling 100 million records, and being dubbed the “King of Pop,” saw himself as a savior. Saving Gavin was just part of his duties.

And that’s what blew him up. He allowed Martin Bashir to come to his house and make a documentary that showed Michael embracing the Arvizos. It was appalling. The worst part of Bashir’ heavily slanted film, called “Living with Michael Jackson,” was a segment in which Gavin– who Michael had brought to Neverland for the filming to show that he was a savior– talked about sleeping in Michael’s bed. When the documentary ran on ABC at the end of January 2003, this moment set off alarms. I wrote at the time that it was possible Michael would wind up in jail. The internet blew up.

Sneddon immediately sent his people to the Arvizos’ apartment in Los Angeles. They left his card under their door. And when Michael realized what had happened, he kicked the freeloading Arvizo’s out of Neverland. They had to return to their real life– no more spa treatments and gifts. And that’s when Sneddon found a conspirator in Janet Arvizo. The only thing was, he didn’t do due diligence. He was so excited to have someone who could help him realize his goal of putting Michael Jackson in jail, he never investigated Janet Arvizo’s background.

My favorite moment sitting in that Santa Maria courthouse? When Tom Mesereau got Janet Arvizo to testify she thought Michael Jackson was going to steal her children by taking them away in a hot air balloon. The courtroom howled. Judge Melville banged his gavel. It was the culmination of a devastating testimony skillfully delived by Mesereau. Everyone knew at that moment the jury was not going to buy Sneddon’s prosecution. Everyone, that is, except Sneddon.

There were good prosecutors on Sneddon’s team. Ron Zonen was and is respected. So is Gordon Auchincloss. They had some great dramatic moments in court. But they never questioned Sneddon’s motives. They followed him right off the bridge into the ocean.

The prosecutors were so out of touch with what was happening that on the eve of the verdict, they threw themselves a congratulatory party. In a public restaurant. A woman I knew stumbled upon them and called me immediately. This is what I wrote on June 10, 2005:

The prosecutors in Michael Jackson’s child molestation and conspiracy trial apparently feel they’ve already won their case.

On Wednesday night [June 8], the whole lot of them — DA Tom Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Gordon Auchincloss, their wives and families — all celebrated at the Hitching Post restaurant in Casmalia.

The Hitching Post, cousin of the Buellton restaurant featured in the movie “Sideways,” is considered the best restaurant in the greater Santa Maria area.

Sneddon was so happy that he actually embraced celebrity crime reporter Aphrodite Jones. She told me he was in a jubilant mood, and the most outgoing of all the people on hand.

Said one observer, “This group was happy. There was definitely a celebratory mood.”

The prosecutor’s team was first spotted making merry at the bar, and then retreated to a private dining room behind the bar that has no door.

“They could be heard laughing and carrying on,” said a source.

Also present at what could only be termed a party were several of the police investigators involved in the case, including Sgts. Steve Robel and Jeff Klapakis.

By contrast, little has been seen around town of defense attorney Tom Mesereau, who’s kept a low profile since the jury began deliberations a week ago.

It was two weeks since the defense had rested. It would be five more days before the jury would come back with their stunning verdict that rebuked Sneddon’s entire case. But there they were, so full of hubris, certain that they’d prevailed.

In a way they had. Tom Sneddon essentially killed Michael Jackson. If Sneddon had really been objective and had investigated the Arvizo’s properly, the case would not have come to trial. But he turned it into a circus from day 1–staging a surprise raid of Neverland, conspiring with tabloid reporter Diane Dimond (whose entire career is built on her obsession with being Jackson’s snarling enemy)– to make it a big media splash. Nothing was done by the book. It was all done to ruin Michael Jackson and it worked.

The Arvizos– we’ve never heard from them again, not a peep (except for Diane Dimond’s report about his 2013 wedding where — unbelievably– at least one Michael Jackson was played by the deejay). Jordan Chandler? His father, after turning his son into a recluse and destroying Jackson’s reputation, committed suicide five months after Michael’s death at the hands of Dr. Conrad Murray. In 1996, a journalist named Mary Fisher wrote a seminal piece in GQ proving Evan Chandler and his ex-wife’s new husband had brainwashed Jordy into thinking he’d been molested. They got $20 million for their hard work. Thirteen years later Michael Jackson was dead.

The jury in the trial thought that once they’d acquitted Michael, the solid gold gates to Neverland would swing open and Jackson would thank each of them individually. They were so wrong. The gates snapped shut. Jackson was never seen again in the town of Los Olivos. Two weeks later he and his children were gone, kicking off four years of homelessness that would end in death. Neverland fell silent. Unlike with the prosecutors, there was no celebration of this bitter victory.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2015/06/12/michael-jackson-10-years-since-the-court-acquittal-that-eventually-killed-him

Sorry guys, but this post will not be (as promised) about Michael’s elder son seeing Randy Phillips and Tohme in his house just hours before his father’s death. For some reason that post didn’t write itself for the occasion and will have to wait until a later time.

Instead, same as many of us I was untangling the knot of emotions brought back by the memory of those days trying to understand the dominant feeling besides the ever-present sadness that Michael died so young and spent his last days under so much pressure from his so-called partners.

For me this predominant feeling is a total needlessness of this death, if a word like that belongs here at all. Indeed, what hurts most is that Michael’s death was easily avoidable and his life was kind of sacrificed to absolutely trivial matters, if not trifles.

And these matters have a direct bearing on the scene Prince Jackson witnessed on the night of June 25th after which he never saw his father alive again.

That evening the main point on the agenda of Conrad Murray and his AEG employers was not the life and health of a man without whom the whole tour was impossible – the main point on their agenda was the insurance and the need to obtain Michael’s agreement to send his medical records to London so that the new requirements of the insurance company were observed.

The medical records were ready as they had been sent to Murray by his assistant the day prior to that. They didn’t contain anything extraordinary from the point of view of Michael’s health and it was only Michael’s permission that was missing before Murray could send them to London.

The time was pressing as the new medical examination was to take place immediately upon Michael’s arrival in London, and the AEG people were all agog over it – if the requirements of the insurance company were not observed the $17mln insurance could be lost.

So it was most probably over that insurance policy that Randy Phillips and Tohme were haughtily talking to Murray on the night of Michael’s death holding him by the arm and sounding somewhat aggressive and demanding (which was the scene observed by Prince Jackson).

Another issue that night could be their burning desire to obtain Michael’s signature on Murray’s contract that would amount to Michael’s consent to cover all expenses on the doctor. The initial agreement with AEG was a different one – according to Tohme the medical expenses were AEG’s responsibility, but by June 2009 the only thought occupying Randy Phillips’s mind was cutting their costs on Michael Jackson, especially in case the insurance was not obtained, so all prior agreements with him were unceremoniously put aside.

Murray’s contract with AEG Live was lying in his car together with Randy Phillips visiting card and telephone, waiting for Michael’s signature. It was prepared by AEG that very day and nothing was more important for Murray than having that contract signed – otherwise he was afraid not to receive his back payment for the two months spent with Michael and his financial future was becoming vague and uncertain.

However the hopes of AEG and Murray to get Michael’s agreement to both of those points were not to be realized. Firstly, he didn’t permit Murray to send his medical records to London as he was of the opinion that nothing else was required of him after the first medical examination earlier that year. We know it for a fact from Murray’s  long text to the insurance broker sent closer to the morning hours of that night, apparently after a discussion with MJ.

As to the signature on Murray’s contract – well, the odds that Michael refused to take upon himself the expenses on Murray’s services are very high too. From the start of his venture with AEG he was insistent that taking care of his health was one of AEG’s primary responsibilities – he compared himself with a “machine” and it is those who run it that should be most interested in taking care of it so that it is able to perform and run smoothly throughout the tour.

Many suspect that the ruined hopes for the insurance and the contract signature could be reasons enough for a foul play resulting in Michael’s death – nothing could be easier than opening the clamp on his IV tube and make the propofol run faster for a couple of moments, and that would be it.

And these suspicions are actually not that groundless as at least one witness heard on Murray’s telephone the mumble of voices over Michael’s dead body though at that moment Murray was supposed to be all alone with Michael in the room.

None of us know either at what time Tohme or Randy Phillips left Michael’s home that night (if they did at all) as all video tapes of comings and goings for that day mysteriously disappeared in the police vaults and the police say that they were accidentally erased.

It looks like Tohme and Phillips arrived at the hospital premises together the morning after Michael’s death

And we’ve also seen a strange photo of Tohme and Randy Phillips entering the hospital premises together the morning after Michael’s death.

Similarly we were surprised to learn that the guards who were on duty the night of Michael’s death were fired by Tohme the very next morning and were replaced by some other people with no explanation.

All of it is indeed extremely strange but I suggest that today we don’t go any further and instead look at those two circumstances (insurance and signature) from a distance of 6 years.

DOOMED TO BE PONTIUS PILATE

Even if there was no foul play involved and Michael’s death was just an accident resulting from his partners’ agitation and fear of losing the insurance, and this is why Murray was rushing back and forth with some papers and telephone in his hand instead of monitoring his patient, the question still remains – is some insurance worth the tragedy it ended with?

Now that you look at it from a distance of 6 years all this fuss strikes you as petty, trivial and insignificant and certainly not equivalent to the value of a human life.

Some people think that their world is revolving around some insurance but years later it becomes clear that it was actually revolving around the man whose life they did not treasure, while the insurance was not worth even a fraction of his life.

What is some insurance in comparison with the loss of Michael Jackson whose death became an irreparable tragedy to all peoples of the world?

In fact, others spend more on charity than the AEG corporation was fearing to lose on their damned insurance. And even if it came to the worst and the tour was cancelled they would still have access to his assets (according to that promissory note) and possess all recordings of his rehearsals, which would sell for millions in any case – whether he was alive or dead.

And even in the totally unlikely case that none of it worked they would have still enjoyed a tremendous boost in their reputation and the fame of being the ones who brought back on stage the biggest megastar of the world.

And what now? Due to that petty fuss over some insurance a life is lost and AEG Live will forever enjoy the dubious fame of another Pontius Pilate as each time the death of one will be remembered, the name of the other will be remembered too, even if it weren’t literally them who nailed their victim to the cross.

So was some damned insurance worth the notoriety that will forever haunt AEG Live now, even when this corporation ceases to exist?

And what is their grudge over money to Murray in comparison with their ensuing profits, or Murray’s fuss over his contract compared to the fame he would have enjoyed if he had followed his medical duties properly and had been adequately equipped for the job?

What do all these considerations matter in comparison with the death of a man who trusted these people with his life and well-being but was sacrificed to their so-called “business interests” instead? If some business interests are so anti-human hadn’t they better go to hell?

Same as tobacco companies are obliged to warn customers that smoking of their produce kills, it’s high time some corporations warned their clients and entertained audience that their business interests kill too or at the very least are more important than a human life.

Whether it was neglect and total disregard for Michael or a much more wicked game than that, some insurance is certainly not worth the price of a life, especially if it is the life of a healthy man who was meant to live long, a genius of a dancer and composer who could have created lots of unforgettable music, and a father who – like all of us – was also dreaming of seeing his children grow up.

It is actually an insult that Murray and AEG officials are still enjoying life among their loved ones and Michael Jackson has been in grave for six years with his children having to grow up without him – and all of it due to someone’s greed over the insurance and salary of one of their employees!

No, these petty issues were not worth the tragedy for Michael’s orphaned children and an anguished cry that went over millions of people who also felt somehow orphaned by his death. As if by some miracle all these people immediately understood what a horrible injustice took place, while those who were directly involved in his death saw nothing extraordinary about it – life was going on for them and money matters were still coming first to these people:

• “Michael’s death is a terrible tragedy, but life must go on. AEG will make a fortune from merch sales, ticket retention, the touring exhibition and the film/dvd.”  – Randy Phillips of AEG Live

So what it boils down to is that the world lost a genius and a great human being because AEG and their medical employee were busy with the pettiest of issues while the man was dying, and when the family of the decedent dared to ask “Why?” they went furious and trashed his name inside out adding a lot of extra dirt to it.

And remember that Michael had a similar treatment from them while he was alive too – it was the same scorn (“a freak”), the same humiliation (“I slapped him”), the same hysteria (“I shouted at him so that the walls shook”), the same lies (“he agreed to 50 shows”) and the same cruelty (“he needs a straight jacket”).

This was the horrible way Michael had to spend his last days on earth.

It seems that the media realizes the huge injustice done to Michael Jackson and feels somewhat uncomfortable about it. Otherwise it would be impossible to explain why they prefer to forget the incident altogether and put a huge effort into portraying Michael as a good-for-nothing “addict” who died of an “overdose” and as a final argument hang on the absurd molestation stories told by some extremely shady characters.

By the way, if Michael’s life had not been sacrificed to someone’s greed there wouldn’t have been any new allegations either as no liars would have dared tell their ugly stories if they simply had to look Michael in the eye. The word “shame” is of course not applicable to Robson/Safechuck but if Michael were alive they would be too ashamed to slander him – of this I am sure.

And whether foul play or not, all these people are still responsible for Michael’s death. Some thought of the insurance more than the man their whole tour depended on, others were running on these people’s errands hoping to get the signatures for contracts they were craving for, and those who always wanted to tear Michael down got a free hand after his death to drag him through the mud with absolutely no repercussions for themselves and possibly even at a good profit too considering the enormity of his estate.

And what’s noteworthy is that those who directly contributed to Michael’s death then, are now also extremely interested in portraying him in the worst light possible so that no one feels sorry for this “drug addict” and “molester” which he actually never was.

The pattern is simple and banal as all evil – first they did him in and when people began to mourn and ask questions they started smearing his name with double force or ignore his death hoping that it would be quickly forgotten.

And this is probably the main reason why the media articles marking the 6^th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death are so totally ridiculous.

THIS IS ALL THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT MICHAEL

Look at this CNN piece for example – I’ve never read a more incoherent and shallow story than this one:

 (CNN)Michael Jackson died June 25, 2009, but for many of his fans, it feels like yesterday.

From the radio to the Internet, the King of Pop is being remembered today for his legacy of music and superstardom.

A cappella group Pentatonix performed a mashup of 25 MJ songs in an “Evolution of Michael Jackson” video that has gotten more than 3 million views. Billboard called it “the perfect tribute.”

While some make the trek to Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Hollywood Hills, California, to view his grave, one website hosts an annual “A rose for Michael Jackson” event in which fans from around the world buy roses via Paypal and leave messages on a memorial page.

Many have been using social media to share their feelings of love and loss. A constant theme for fans has been that Jackson, who died from an overdose of propofol, will remain forever in the hearts of those who admired him.

On Twitter, #6yearswithoutMichaeljackson trended worldwide, with one fan noting that “no one will ever come close to being the man that he was.”

Time magazine published never-before-seen photos of Jackson from the 1970s, captured by photographer Alix Dejean.

“I had a lot of admiration for Michael,” said Dejean, who was introduced to the singer by Mamadou Johnny Sekka, director of the documentary “Jackson 5 in Africa.” “I loved him.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/25/entertainment/michael-jackson-death-anniversary-feat/

The ABC News piece also devoted one sentence to Michael’s illustrious career but placed much focus on his legal troubles and “alleged molestation” issues.

Their intention to smear Michael’s name will become all the more clear to you when you read their comment on the picture accompanying their so-called story – it unabashedly reminds people that “Michael Jackson Court Case Continues”.

How nice. And also how true.

Today Is The Sixth Anniversary Of Michael Jackson’s Death

And this is said in 2015!

ABC9 News

06/25/2015 07:09 AM

Michael Jackson Court Case Continues (Justin Sullivan, 2005 Getty Images)

Los Angeles, CA (ABC9 News) – June 25, 2009 is a day that will live in infamy for music fans.
The iconic singer Michael Jackson died six years ago on this date.
The “King of Pop” had a long and illustrious career.
It all started with the family band when he was a kid.
Michael was the lead singer of the “Jackson Five.” The group had hits like ABC, I’ll Be There, Blame It On The Boogie,  and Rockin’ Robin.
But his legend only grew when he split from the band.
During the 1980’s Michael had legendary hits like Thriller, Beat It, Bad, and Billie Jean.
Jackson is also known for his eccentric personality, with many legal troubles, including a number of alleged molestation claims.
Michael Jackson was 50 years old when he died.

http://www.siouxlandmatters.com/story/d/story/today-is-the-sixth-anniversary-of-michael-jackson/24567/HLlK8CRzaEiDPRFli55x7A

Impressive coverage, isn’t it? So it was the Jackson 5 and Billie Jean. And in the 1980s only. And Michael Jackson was nothing but a singer. Also known for his eccentric personality, etc. etc. And this is all they have to say about their great compatriot.

The US media is definitely trying to belittle Michael Jackson’s gift to the world and is downplaying his talent, impact and fame. But the impression their efforts produce is somewhat paradoxical and unexpected – when you see so obvious an effort to depreciate Michael Jackson’s magnitude you don’t even know whether to cry or laugh. They are trying so hard that it is even pathetic.

WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY

While the US media is being so obviously and intentionally tight-lipped about Michael Jackson, a really good coverage of his legacy is coming from other places – for example, India:

INDIATODAY.IN  NEW DELHI, JUNE 25, 2015 | UPDATED 12:33 IST

Michael Jackson’s 6th death anniversary: Everything you would like to know about the King of Pop

“Always believe in yourself. No matter who’s around you being negative or thrusting negative energy at you, totally block it off. Because whatever you believe, you become” – MICHAEL JACKSON

“You can be extremely talented but if you do not get ready and work according to the plan you will fail.”

This was the King of Pop, Michael Joseph Jackson. A singer, lyricist, producer, dancer and actor, Michael Jackson was born on August 29, 1958. Well-known for his moon walk and ability to lean forward with the help of his anti-gravity boots, Jackson won several awards in his career. He was awarded with World Music Award for Best Selling Male Artist of the Millennium, 26 American Music Award, inducted into Hall of Fame, 13 Grammy awards and the list goes on.

Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009 and on his 6th death anniversary today, here are few facts about the king of pop, you would not like to overlook:

• His solo career began in 1972 and Michael released four solo studio albums with Motown (American record company) in 1975. He became an overnight star with ‘Got to Be There’, ‘Ben’ and ‘Music & Me’

• It has been acknowledged by his father Joe that he regularly whipped and abused Michael Jackson. Although Jackson credited his father’s strict discipline for playing a large role in his success

• Due to his father, Jackson always had deep dissatisfaction with his appearance. He had admitted that his nightmares and chronic sleep problems, his tendency to remain hyper-compliant and to remain childlike throughout his adult life, were consistent because of the maltreatment he endured

• He was only five years old when he gave his first public performance

• In 1979, Jackson broke his nose during a complex dance routine

• Jackson invented and owns the patent for the special anti-gravity boots he wore that allowed him to lean forward in live performances

• It is said that he borrowed the Moonwalk from street dancers he saw outside of his hotel

• Jackson suffered from a rare skin called Vitiligo in 1986 which, as was said, was the consequence of skin bleaching. His illnesses made him sensitive to sunlight

• The treatments he used further lightened his skin and he had to apply pancake makeup to hide the blotches developed on his skin

• Jackson regularly wore a black armband to remind people of children suffering around the world

• At the time of his death Jackson was rehearsing for his greatest comeback, with 50 shows scheduled in London

• His first autobiography, Moonwalk, took four years to complete and sold 200,000 copies

• He was the founder of the Heal the World Foundation. The charity brought underprivileged children to Jackson’s farm to enjoy theme park rides that Jackson had built

• Since Michael Jackson was a private drinker, he would request his wine to be served in diet coke cans during flights. He did not want his kids to see him drinking alcohol

• As it has been reported, Michael Jackson had a meeting in one of the Twin Towers on the morning of 9/11, but missed it because he overslept

• He was invited in the White House to receive an award from President Ronald Reagan for his support of charities

• After his death, three of his previous albums were sold more than any new album

• The news of his death spread quickly causing websites like Wikipedia and Twitter to slow down and crash from user overload

• Michael Jackson was inducted onto the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1980 as member of the Jacksons and in 1984 as solo artist. He was the first artist to be inducted into the Walk of Fame twice.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/education/story/michael-jacksons-6th-death-anniversary/1/446929.html

The  UK media is not generally too gracious towards Michael Jackson but this time it is really impressive with its emotional headline saying that six years have passed but everyone is still missing Michael like crazy.

That’s true, and every new year without him makes it only worse.

Michael Jackson died 6 years ago today and everyone is still missing him like crazy

Ann Lee for Metro.co.ukThursday 25 Jun 2015 8:47 am

The ultimate King of Pop.

Six years ago today, the world lost a musical legend.

Michael Jackson passed away on June 25, 2009 aged 50 in his bed at his Los Angeles home from a cardiac arrest brought on by acute propofol and benzodiazepine intoxication.

His death was ruled homicide by the Los Angeles County Coroner and his personal physician Conrad Murray was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

Fans paid tribute to the late star today using the hashtag #6YearsWithoutMichaelJackson on Twitter.

• Some people make music, some people change music. He has changed the music industry.
• Missing the KING more than ever today. How I wish I could go back in time.
• MJ completely revolutionized the music world – especially when it comes to music videos. He needs more credit.
• Born to amuse, to inspire, to delight, here one day, gone one night.
• We just can’t stop loving you.
• Вернись, пожалуйста. [Come back please]
• Просто будем плакать и глядеть в зеркало.Изменим мир,господа [Let us simply cry and look in the mirror. Ladies and gentlemen, let us change the world] http://metro.co.uk/2015/06/25/michael-jackson-died-6-years-ago-today-and-everyone-is-still-missing-him-like-crazy-5264811/

Another UK source tells the truth about Michael Jackson quoting the book by his two bodyguards Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard “Remember The Time: Protecting Michael Jackson In His Final Days”.

And it suddenly turns out that the true facts about Michael are more exciting and intriguing than lies. Those who are sick and tired of the caricature the media made of him will have much food for thought when they read this:

Secret girlfriends & family feuds: Michael Jackson’s bodyguards reveal the shocking truth

MYSTERY LOVERS, family rifts, code names and shooting hoops – Michael Jackson’s security team reveal what life was really like with the King Of Pop in his final years.

By STEFAN KYRIAZIS

PUBLISHED: 00:05, Thu, Jun 25, 2015

As we mark the sixth anniversary of his death, it’s easy to remember the worldwide shock when Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009.

Since then, many people have attempted to make sense of his decline over his final years, but few were as well-placed to observe it as Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard. Both men served as Jackson’s security team from December 2006 right up to his untimely death, and had remarkable access to the man behind the myths.

In their book, Remember The Time: Protecting Michael Jackson In His Final Days, Whitfield and Beard, along with Tanner Colby, present an unprecedented first-hand account of the last years of the superstar’s life.

The authors exclusively spoke to Express.co.uk and revealed some incredible insights into The King Of Pop’s personal life – his security fears, the extreme lengths to which he went to protect his children Paris, Michael aka “Prince” and Prince Michael aka “Blanket”, and his increasing distance from his own family. But they also stressed the more positive sides of his character that often get lost or overlooked in all the drama.

“We had the privilege of serving as Michael Jackson’s personal Las Vegas security team for the last two and a half years of his life. In that time we got to know a man, a kind and generous person and a loving father, who was completely different from the cartoonish figure portrayed in the tabloids,” they said.

In their own words, scroll down for their 10 surprising revelations about Michael Jackson’s final years.

And if you want to remember the time when the much-missed superstar ruled the charts, watch our round up of Michael Jackson’s Top 15 moments on video.

Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard’s Top 10 revelations about Michael Jackson:

1. SECRET LOVERS

Mr Jackson had at least two secret girlfriends who lived abroad. We met them when they flew in to visit during a summer vacation in Middleburg, Virginia.

He kept their presence a secret from his family, his managers, even his children.

We were the only two privy to their arrival, and even we were never told their real names; he referred to them only as “Friend” and “Flower”.

2. BUGGED BY BUGGING

Michael Jackson lived in fear of being secretly recorded. Before Mr Jackson entered any hotel room or conference room, he would have us sweep the room for cameras or listening devices.

If he even suspected that a room was bugged, he’d insist on changing rooms. When he discovered that a limousine company had failed to disconnect the security cameras mounted inside a car we’d rented, he had us confiscate the vehicle and hold it in the garage until the company agreed to turn over the recordings it had made so that they could be destroyed.

It wasn’t just paranoia. In 2003, a private conversation between Mr Jackson and his lawyer had been taped without their knowledge and shopped to the tabloids.

Even Janet had to make an appointment to see her brother

Bill Whitfield, Javon Beard and Tanner Colby

3. FAMILY SPLIT

By the time he returned to America from Bahrain and Ireland in late 2007, Mr Jackson was almost completely estranged from everyone in his family except his mother.

She would drop by unannounced and he always welcomed her. Everyone else had to have an appointment to see him. Even Janet.

On numerous occasions, his famous siblings would arrive, sometimes breaking through the security gate, only to be turned away.

4. BOOK WORM 

Too famous to leave his house very often, Michael Jackson was a huge reader.

He devoured books on history, art, science, you name it.

On a single trip to the bookstore, he’d drop $5,000 on books like he was buying a pack of gum.

During a 2007 visit to Los Angeles, he found a used book store he liked so much that he bought it for $100,000 cash on the spot and had the entire collection hauled back to his Las Vegas home.

5. CODE NAME KIDS

Most people know that in public, Mr Jackson required his children to wear masks in order to hide their identities from the paparazzi.

That wasn’t the only precaution he took.

He also gave the children code names to use with each other and for us to use over the radio. They were never to use their real names outside of the house.

6. KING OF CLASSICS 

Michael Jackson may have been the King of Pop, but in his private time he listened almost exclusively to classical music. Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky – that was the soundtrack running in his car and his house all the time.

7. A FRIEND IN DEED

Much to our surprise, Mr Jackson revealed to us that after OJ Simpson was acquitted for the murder of his wife, he allowed the disgraced football player to take refuge from the media at his Neverland Ranch.

8. MEDIA BLACKOUT

In his final years, Michael Jackson had virtually blocked out the entire world.

Thanks to the relentless and typically negative tabloid coverage of his life, Jackson wouldn’t watch broadcast or cable TV, only DVDs. He had no computer and would typically have one of us search the Internet and send emails on his behalf.

On trips to bookstore and newsstands, we had to pre-screen the newspaper and magazine racks to make sure there were no Michael Jackson-related stories that he or the children might see.

The only American news Mr Jackson consumed was The Wall Street Journal, which he read religiously every morning, because it was one of the few places he was unlikely to read crazy allegations about his personal life.

9. HITTING THE HOOPS

One of Mr Jackson’s favorite pastimes was playing basketball. He and his brothers learned how to play at Marvin Gaye’s house back in the Jackson 5 days.

He would go out to the driveway all the time and just shoot hoops by himself for a few hours. It was his way to relax and unwind. He had a pretty good jump shot, too.

10. NEVER NEVERLAND

After Santa Barbara sheriffs ransacked Jackson’s Neverland mansion in 2003, he declared that he could never live there again; it was no longer a home where he felt safe.

Five years later, in 2008, the estate was exactly as the sheriffs had left it: drawers ransacked, furniture overturned, everything gathering dust.

Jackson and his children spent the remaining years of his life living in hotels and rented homes.

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/480373/michael-jacksons-girlfriends-anniversary-of-death

An a cappella group called Pentatonix made an excellent tribute to Michael Jackson that would fit the standards of perfection of Michael himself. They tackle 25 of his songs in less than six minutes and collect millions of views within just one day.

These millions of people evidently didn’t read what the US media says about Michael – that he was just a “singer” who had some hits only in the 1980s:

And one more UK source speaks of Michael’s children as probably the best tribute to their father. Prince Jackson graduated from high school with honors and will go to the university next fall. Paris has turned into an elegant young lady and looks happy in the company of a friend Chester Castellaw, and Blanket is busy with all sorts of activities including martial arts.

Remembering Michael Jackson: How Prince, Paris and Blanket Are Coping 6 Years After Their Dad’s Tragic Death

Prince Jackson graduated from high school with honors

by Mike Vulpo Today 5:00 AM PDT

It’s hard to believe that six years ago today, fans around the world heard the shocking news that Michael Jackson had passed away.

While every anniversary brings a variety of emotions to fans of the “King of Pop,” one can’t help but acknowledge the growth the singer’s three children have experienced in the spotlight.

Just last month, Prince Jackson graduated from a private California high school with honors. The milestone was a family affair that featured plenty of celebrations.

“So very proud of @Princemjjjaxon,” aunt LaToya Jackson tweeted after the ceremony. “YOU DID! And you did it with Honors!!! #BuckleyClassof2015.”

Both are looking really happy

Cousin T. J. Jackson added, “Prince, you have grown into an incredibly special young man. Words can’t express how proud I am of you.” Prince is expected to begin college at Loyola Marymount University this fall. https://instagram.com/p/3UPKtwFiqX/

Not to be outdone, younger sister Paris Jackson appears to have a very special friend in her life. Earlier this spring, the 17-year-old was spotted out enjoying quality time with soccer club member Chester Castellaw. In fact, they recently stepped out onto a red carpet together and made quite the dynamic duo.

Finally, Blanket continues to stay busy with a variety of activities. When not attending private school, the 13-year-old has been involved with martial arts while still hanging out with his extended family.

It’s safe to say Michael would be one proud father.

http://uk.eonline.com/news/670316/remembering-michael-jackson-how-prince-paris-and-blanket-are-coping-6-years-after-their-dad-s-tragic-death

Michael’s children are indeed his best creation and the way they are turning out is truly amazing, especially considering the amount of suffering and pain they had to go through. And if Michael were alive he would indeed be one proud father.

If he were alive.

Please never forget why he is not.

Every normal person will agree that Wade Robson’s story claiming that for thirty years “he always remembered that he was raped” but “didn’t realize that it was sexual abuse” is insane and may sound convincing only in case it refers to the memory of a very young child.

Indeed, it is only toddlers and very small children who are unable to differentiate between right and wrong in the behavior of adults and who give their trusting little hand to almost any of them, accepting everything done to them as a norm (alas).

While it is unfortunately easy to cheat a five-year old by saying that “what we are doing is right” or go without any explanation at all, similar behavior with a teenager will already get him very much on his guard. And convincing a 22-year old that rape, for example, is perfectly okay will be a totally impossible task – with the exception of complete imbeciles of course.

But Robson doesn’t look like one, even though he talks of “not knowing what it was” even when a grown-up. The complaints filed by him against the MJ Estate have some parts redacted for the general public, but his lawyers and MJ haters who for some reason are extremely knowledgeable about the details of Robson’s case, explain to us that Robson denied everything for so many years because “he thought that rape was a manifestation of love” and “he didn’t realize that it was sexual abuse”.

And not only didn’t he realize it when he was in his teens, but he didn’t realize it when he was almost 23 and testified about Michael’s innocence at the 2005 trial (where he said that MJ had never as much as touched him), and it was only when he turned 30 that some good therapist finally enlightened him on the subject and explained to him that rape is sexual abuse after all.

Never mind that the story is ridiculous, that none of it ever happened and there is overwhelming proof that Robson’s is telling us a huge lie – Robson’s version is so big an insult to human intelligence and common sense that it is no use even going into that.

But there is another possibility here. A kid may indeed not realize that he was sexually abused if it happened to him at a very early age – the very small don’t question the behavior of adults and don’t properly realize what is done to them and why.

Remember Dylan Farrow never liking sitting in Woody Allen’s lap? She felt uncomfortable by what he was doing to her but without realizing what it was. And how is a small kid supposed to know that caressing her hair is perfectly okay, while caressing her other body part is absolutely wrong? The kid will feel uneasy but will still tolerate this behavior because he or she does not see the difference between the two and because small children are always taught by adults to “behave themselves”, obey the elders and do as they are told.

In contrast to that a teenager would not tolerate the same or as a very minimum will be fully aware of what is being done to him or her.

So when a 30-year old man says that “he didn’t realize that it was rape” his story is either fiction or the abuse happened when he was very, very small.  There is simply no other alternative no matter how hard the narrator is trying to adjust, extend and apply his story to a different age.

But what is the age borderline between the time when the child “doesn’t realize” and the time when he “already knows”?

All of us were children once, so our own personal experience can help here, however if you don’t want to rely on that here is what scientific research says:

“From the ages of three to seven children begin to have a sense of learned modesty and of the differences between private and public behaviors”.

“From the ages of three to five they are old enough to understand that no one — not even family members or other people they trust — should ever touch them in a way that feels uncomfortable.”

http://kidshealth.org/parent/growth/sexual_health/development.html#

So as regards Robson our estimation will be that at the age of seven and a half, when he went to the US in 1990 and met MJ there, he was mature enough to know and understand that allowing someone to fiddle with his body parts was not quite right.

But at the age of four or five it was probably not that clear to him, same as it was for the rest of us.

To my big surprise this early preschool period in a child’s life turned out to be the time when boys are at the biggest risk of being sexually abused. You will never guess it but according to the US statistics the age when boys are most likely to be sexually assaulted is age four. 

Girls enter the main risk group ten years later, at the age of fourteen.

Pennsylvania University did a sweeping research in cooperation with the FBI and other US agencies and its 2001/2002 report said (parents, attention please):

Based on the NIBRS data, the year in a male’s life when he is most likely to be the victim of sexual assault is age 4. By age 17 a male’s risk of victimization has been cut by a factor of 5;

A female’s year of greatest risk is age 14. In the later juvenile years (ages 14-17), the female victimization rates are at least 10 times greater than the male rates for similar age groups.

http://es.scribd.com/doc/78886345/The-Commercial-Sexual-Exploitation-of-Children-In-the-U-S-Canada-and-Mexico-Complete-CSEC-020220

In short, if ever Robson was sexually abused, according to statistical data and his own description the most likely period when it could happen to him was age four or around it, which was the time well before he went to the US.

If this is the case, Robson is simply using the deceased Michael Jackson as a scapegoat for something he didn’t do but should pay for another person’s guilt. One allegation more about Jackson, one allegation less about him – what does it really matter to some people? The real perpetrator may not have money while the MJ estate does, and this is all that matters for a crooked and cynical mind which is ready to substitute the innocent for the guilty.

Those who think that such a scenario is too far-fetched will have to be reminded that it is based solely on Robson’s own story.

If we assume that he could really be abused in his childhood and for this reason had a nervous breakdown many years later, and if we believe his version that he couldn’t properly understand what had been done to him until he sought some insight therapy at the age of 30, this type of long-term “unawareness” could happen only if the abuse took place at a very early age. There is simply no other alternative here, guys, whatever MJ haters say.

I repeat, only in this case Robson’s childhood experience will be more or less consistent with his current incoherent story and may sound more or less believable to us.

The reason for that has already been pointed out – very small children are unable to realize the meaning of sexual actions towards them by some monstrous “kiddie-fiddlers”, but are able to push the memory of the ugly experience into the back of their minds half-remembering and half-forgetting it, all the time being troubled and depressed for seemingly no reason, and then, many years later have a flashback into the past when some chance occurrence triggers off the painful experience in a kind of a bang.

See what the Australian singer Debra Byrne says in her book “Not quite Ripe” about being abused by her own grandfather since as early as she could remember:

Debra Byrne

“From inside the car, I can see the beach. I hear my family talking and other children playing games. The game has begun and my senses begin to shut down . . . a familiar smell is in the car, I don’t like it. His hands are on the back of my head, pushing it down . . . I want to cry but I don’t, I want my mum but she never, ever comes. No one looks for me and I know they never will.”

“My grandfather had been sexually abusing me since as early as I can remember,” she recalls. “It’s quite common for a pedophile to abuse a baby… No age is too young, it’s very complex. It’s not that you hate it…you don’t actually understand it – you don’t really have an opinion of it and that’s exactly what you’re meant to have – no opinion of it – because this is out of your control…”

“You don’t really understand it and don’t have an opinion of it” – this is how a very small child feels when being abused. The child knows what is happening and feels horrible about it, but thinks it is appropriate, in the same way kids think it is okay for adults to bathe them or give them bitter-tasting pills and never doubt their right to do so.

So it is Robson’s own description which is suggestive that the abuse (if any) could happen to him only at a very tender age – like him being three, four or five years old. And in this case even in theory it could never be done by MJ as until seven Robson never left Australia, so in search for his possible abuser we will have to go to his homeland and look at his early years there.

There is no guarantee that we will find anything there but we could at least look at the people he associated with and see whether an abuse was possible in the social environment he was in.

EARLY YEARS IN AUSTRALIA

Robson, born on September 17, 1982 made his first TV appearance in 1986, apparently at the age of four. This is when he went on a local Australian talent show “New Faces 4” and performed there a dance routine to Michael Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal” (according to this earlier wiki article). Or it could be another MJ’s song given that Smooth Criminal was only in a demo version at the time.

Wade Robson was five when he first met Michael Jackson in 1987

Whatever, a year later, in 1987 he won a contest where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson. The boy and his mother did indeed meet Michael and he even took the little Wade to perform with him on stage the next day. It was Michael Jackson’s second show in Brisbaine during the Bad tour and it took place on November 28, 1987. The boy and his mother once again saw Michael the next morning after the show and talked to him for two hours or so.

After that concert Robson didn’t see Michael for another two years and met him again only in winter 1990 when Robson’s “Johnny Young Talent School” dance troupe was invited to Disneyland.

As we already know it took the family eight days to find the telephone number of Michael’s manager Norma Staikos who eventually arranged for them to visit MJ at his recording studio. Michael invited the Robson children, parents and grandparents to spend two weekends at Neverland and a couple of days in his Los Angeles Westwood condo where the three Robsons stayed with MJ.

All in all during that visit the family spent with Michael around a week and this is why it impressed the child as a “week-long trip” while in reality the family was in the US for nearly a month – at least from the day of his performance at Disneyland, January 26th until approximately February 18th, 1990.

Though this is not the goal of the present post let me still note that any abuse of Wade Robson during those days was absolutely ruled out. Robson’s story gets exceptionally sloppy when it comes to its details and every single detail of what he is saying now is in contradiction with the 2005 testimonies of his own mother Joy, sister Chantal and Michael’s maid Blanca Francia. These people were simply describing on which day they did what never realizing that it would become so instrumental in establishing the truth ten years later and disproving Robson’s current lies (see this, this and this post for the proof of it).

Following that winter 1990 visit Robson and his family travelled to the US on two more occasions, in May and September 1990, and then (what a surprise) spent a whole year away from Michael Jackson which is a fact Robson never mentions since it doesn’t suit his story.

It was within that year that Wade, his mother and sister took a decision to separate from the rest of the family and in September 1991 the three of them went to live in America though according to Robson’s later interview (2002) the remaining part of the family thought it “insane”.

By the time of their arrival in the US Robson had already turned nine. However the age of nine is already well beyond the time limits of the scenario we are investigating here, and that is why we will return back in time, to the year 1987 when Wade was only five.

TURNING PROFESSIONAL AT 1987 

Robson’s official website says that his professional career started right after that notable concert with MJ. The very next day after the show he enrolled at a Brisbaine dance school called the Johnny Young Talent School and “became a professional” at the age of five.

In his 2002 interview Robson said that he didn’t want to be choreographed like the rest of the children and liked to “do his own thing”, so they just “put the dancers behind him and choreographed them” while he was perfecting his imitations of Michael Jackson’s dance.

Speaking about Johnny Young’s Talent school Robson said that their child troupe travelled all around Australia and performed in Melbourne and Sydney. The troupe was performing in shopping malls, clubs and on morning TV programs and their concerts were “roughly fourteen times a week” according to his website.

Wait, so they performed fourteen times a week? But this is twice a day on every day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays!

You will agree that so dense a work schedule could be possible only when the young dancers were on holidays, but once they were, the children must have been away from home for whole days, if not weeks.

This is the first time I realized that if Robson travelled with the dance troupe for several years (since 1987 to 1991 when he moved to the US) beginning with age five or six, even the constant presence of his mother would not save the boy from the danger of a possible abuse.

There were surely moments when the children were left on their own, were in the company of older dancers, the school staff or agents taking care of their travel, accommodation and catering, and some of those who were in regular contact with the children could easily turn out to be wrongdoers.

Though this danger sounds abstract you will agree that it did exist, and mind you, we don’t even know if the parents were allowed to accompany the young dancers as taking the parents along with their kids would be double the cost.

There is one other thing I need to mention as regards that dance team.

Below are a few screenshots from the videos of Johnny Young’s Talent school performances of the period when Wade Robson was part of the troupe.

My first surprise was to find that the dance team was made up of children of different ages some of whom looked to me almost like grown-ups.

And the other surprise was the fact that the outfits of the group were somewhat provocative for a team of child dancers. Consider me an old-fashioned and conservative moralist but I simply see no point in having the children dressed in so sexualized a way.

Here is a screenshot from their show in Queen street Mall in Brisbane on the 11^th of September 1989 as part of The Warana Festival. This group looks like the fifteen/ sixteen year olds.

The Johnny Young Talent School, September 11, 1989 (screenshot)

And below is a screenshot of the same group performing in Brisbaine a year later.

The Johnny Young Talent Team was mixed in age and included younger and older children (screenshot of June 24,1990 performance)

Considering  the scenario we are investigating here you needn’t be surprised by my emphasis on the dance group being mixed in age.

The US statistics quoted earlier says that in terms of sexual abuse older juveniles are very often a threat to younger children.

Researchers from Pennsylvania University say:

“During the course of our field research we encountered many “opportunistic customers” of children for sex.

The majority of these persons were men (75%), but a distinct minority were other juveniles (20%) and women (5%).

With the exception of the juveniles interviewed, most of these sexual exploiters of children did not indicate a sexual preference for children but, rather, said they had sex with children because “they were available”.

So for some people all that matters is that “children are available”, you see?

With regard to Robson’s dance troupe all this talk about a theoretical danger from older juveniles is purely abstract of course and it would be totally improper to assert anything here, but since in theory it was possible this risk factor still needs to be mentioned.

As to the children’s provocative outfits look at the screenshot of their performance on January 12th, 1990 (it was right on the eve of their travel to Disneyland on January 26th) where the seven-year old Robson was dancing with some girls.

Wade Robson and the Johnny Young Talent Group on January 12th, 1990 (screenshot)

Debra Byrne mentioned above, was also a member of the Johnny Young Talent team and also found it unsettling that the 1980s were marked by the tendency of the YTT staff to make the children look more adult-like.

She says that in the 70s when she was part of the team the children on YTT were much more child-like.

Debra joined Young Talent Time (YTT) in 1971, and now finds it unsettling to look back on some of the episodes.

“If you look back at the original YTT there was a lot more child-like appearance, and unfortunately a lot of that footage was destroyed… so what we see now is of the 80s, and they did start to fluff up a lot… They were wearing a lot of make-up, 80’s hair, accessories… whereas when we were in the show the skirts were high, sure, but they weren’t trying to make us look like adults..”

However irrespective of the YTT tendency to make the children look more adult-like and provocative at the time when Robson was with that school, none of it would really matter if no cases of child sexual abuse ever took place within the walls of the company.

Unfortunately this is not the case.

At least one girl was abused on the YTT premises and this is actually what we know (and how much we don’t?). The girl was Debra Byrne, and yes, it was the Debra Byrne we have already talked about.

The man who groomed, seduced and eventually raped her was one of the employees of Johnny Young Talent Time crew who worked as the boom operator at the YTT studio. Later he was charged with statutory rape and convicted of “carnal knowledge” as Debra Byrne describes it in her autobiography book.

JOHNNY YOUNG TALENT TIME

Unlike Robson Debra Byrne was not studying at the Johnny Young Talent school but was a member of the original cast of the Johnny Young Talent Time show produced for TV.

This young talent quest show ran for 17 years from 1971 to the end of 1988 and was the core project of Lewis-Young Productions, a partnership between host Johnny Young and his friend Kevin Lewis.

The schools where Wade Robson and other children learned the art of performing were opened by Johnny Young several years later after the launch of YTT on TV and were Johnny Young’s separate project though in some association with the show.

YTT was very popular in Australia and it was a dream of every Australian boy and girl to be selected for its main cast. The age limit for the applicants was strict – as soon as the children turned 16 they had to leave the show and make room for other budding stars with a gift for singing and dancing.

It seems that many children and their parents regarded the talent schools run by Johnny Young as a sort of a preliminary step to Johnny’s YTT show and this makes me think that Wade Robson also joined the school in the hope to eventually make it to TV and join the regular cast.

The original Young Talent Time Team (Debra Byrne is sitting on the floor)

Wiki says that generations of Australian children believed that if they worked hard enough they would become a star like the kids on YTT:

Because the series ran for such a long time and featured young performers, Young Talent Time made an indelible mark on the psyche of several generations of Australian children, leading them to believe that if they tried hard enough, they too could be a ‘star’ like the kids they saw on television (Johnny Young launched talent schools in his own name in early 1980s).

Lorena Novoa, a member of the YTT show who began her career at Johnny Young’s Talent School recalls the way her dream of joining the regular cast came true. She says they went to sing and dance there after their school hours and on one happy day her gift for singing was noticed by Johnny Young himself.

“It had all happened so quickly. Six months earlier I’d enrolled at the Johnny Young Talent School. After school I’d go there to sing and dance. My dedication paid off when I sparked the interest of Young Talent Time creator, Johnny Young himself! ‘We’d love you to join the team,’ he’d said.
Now, here I was sitting backstage with the very people I’d watched on TV. I was singing for the nation on Young Talent Time, one of Australia’s biggest television shows.

<>When the TV season came to an end, we’d go on tour, performing around the country. It didn’t take long for the Young Talent Time crew to become my second family. In 1987, after three amazing years in the limelight, my stint on the show came to an end. I was too old to perform. 

‘What will I do now?’ I sobbed to Mum. I had to learn who I was without being Lorena from Young Talent Time. The following year, I was devastated when Young Talent Time was taken off the air after a 17 year run.” 

http://www.thatslife.com.au/Article/Real-Life/Real-Life-Stories/Where-are-they-now-After-Young-Talent-Time

Indeed the Johnny Young Talent Time show was known to be a successful springboard for several stars who made a lasting career in entertainment industry, and this is why it was so big a shock for everyone when at the beginning of 1989 the TV network announced that the show would not be resumed.

The Young Talent Time Team in its last episode on December 1988

“The ‘talent quest’ aspect of YTT, which discovered many budding stars, was not new, but YTT differed from other talent quests in one crucial respect — the best young performers they discovered were offered the chance to develop their craft and career by becoming permanent members of the cast, the so-called ‘Young Talent Team’.

Over the years, dozens of kids were selected as regular performers on the show and its enormous popularity made them household names. Some stayed only briefly in the limelight, but many went on to make lasting careers in entertainment and a few even became major stars; their success is a lasting tribute to Johnny’s encouragement and guidance. Among the best known YTT discoveries are Tina Arena, Debra Byrne, Dannii Minogue, Jane Scali, Jamie Redfern, Rod Kirkham, Phillip Gould, Karen Knowles and Joey Perone.

For nearly twenty years, from 1969 to 1989, Johnny had enjoyed great success with his various enterprises, but in the late 80s and early 90s he faced a series of painful reversals that, for a while, looked like they might wreck his career and his life. The trouble began in 1989 when the Ten Network abruptly cancelled Young Talent Time, a decision that cost Johnny dearly. He had recently invested every cent he had to build his own TV studio facility to produce the show but the unexpected cancellation forced him to sell his family home to meet the debts.

http://www.milesago.com/Artists/YoungJ.htm

The problem was that the show had been struggling for ratings in its final years and finally lost to a competitor called “Hey Hey It’s Saturday”.

Interesting, but for some reason Debra Byrne thought it necessary to post on her FB the news that the long-time director of “Hey Hey It’s Saturday” was recently acquitted of raping and assaulting a 17-year old employee sometime in the 1990s. The accuser alleged that he was told that it was “all part of show business”. On her FB Debra Byrne posted this article about that case without any comment.

Whatever it was, after the YTT show lost to its competitor, the Johnny Young Talent School still functioned for some time and was later merged with another school for performance arts (Studios Entertainment School). But even while it was still operating it surely lost most of its allure to the hopeful youngsters as there was no more prospect of going on TV and turning into a star there.

This point is important to note, because now it doesn’t look like a chance occurrence that a year after that TV show was closed Robson and his mother began looking for other opportunities for themselves.

Indeed, if you connect the dots you will realize that by the time Robson went with his dance school to Disneyland in January 1990, the YTT show on TV had not been functioning already for a year and this is probably why he decided to “further pursue his talents after a dance at Disneyland sparked his interest in the US” as his official website says.

As a side note let me say that in the context of Robson’s present claims this “sparked interest” wording sounds somewhat surprising as it clearly shows that it was Robson’s own intention and wish to move to America and Michael Jackson was simply a convenient connection for making these plans possible.

However let us go back to Debra Byrne and see what happened to her when she was with the YTT.

THE CASE OF DEBRA BYRNE

In her autobiography book published in 2006 Debra Byrne recalls that it was on YTT that she was introduced to sex, drugs and alcohol.

Debra Byrne on YTT

From 24 October 2006, weekly magazine New Idea featured articles on Byrne’s autobiography, Not Quite Ripe, which alleged that from the age of 12 she was introduced to sex, drugs and alcohol on Young Talent Time.

The claims were vigorously denied by Young. He stated that Byrne was already 14 when she started and that drugs were not available on set. “Any drug-taking Debra did, she certainly didn’t do it on our show.” He said no-one on the show was aware of her affair with “Michael”, a boom operator ten years her senior.

Johnny Young said that he was always conscious of a duty of care to the children working on Young Talent Time and was adamant he didn’t know anything. I fully believe him, however it doesn’t make things easier for anyone – whether he knew or didn’t know, the girl was still seduced, raped and engaged in an ongoing sexual relationship with someone who was part of his crew.

And if there was a child abuser on the YTT show no one can guarantee that there were none among the staff of the YTT school, where the five or six-year old Robson was performing and who he was travelling with.

If it happened once it could happen twice, and same as Johnny Young didn’t know about Debra’s abuse he could be unaware of other similar occurrences too.

Johnny Young’s reaction to what Debra Byrne said about the situation with sex, drug and alcohol on the set was an extremely angry one:

“Johnny Young’s first reaction to the magazine story was one of absolute anger and then fear about what the story would do to the careers of the people running his talent schools and what parents, who entrust their children into the care of the teachers at those schools, would think”.

His reply to Debra was formal, businesslike and surprisingly harsh considering that the girl was really abused by one of his employees and she didn’t do anything to Young or demand of him except just mentioning that episode in her autobiography book.

Johnny Young focused on the damage her revelations could do to his business and threatened to sue the magazine that published excerpts from her book, especially since the magazine misinterpreted and exaggerated the story (as is usual with the media).  By the time of that publication Young had opened a new Johnny Young Talent school and the things that concerned him most were the enrolment figures and his ratings on the radio.

Debra Byrne is on the left

Even despite what happened to Debra Johnny Young claimed that the duty of care for children entrusted to him was 100 per cent:

Young said he was always conscious of a duty of care to the children working on Young Talent Time.

“We had security people everywhere and we were very aware we were dealing with children,” Young said.

“Our duty of care was 100 per cent when those children were in our care, but those children were not in our care 24 hours a day.

“They were in our care for three to four hours a day after school and on Saturdays they were delivered by their parents to Channel 10 and they rehearsed and at 6.30pm we would do the show.”

<>”I wanted to do one story where I could say `this is what’s happened to me without any care for 20 years of hard work – probably the most important thing I’ve done in my career – tarnished with lies’.

“Whether I sue them or not will be a business decision I’ll have to make depending on whether the kids re-enrol in the school and how my ratings go on the radio because people may not want to listen to me any more if they believe that crap.”

 http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/johnny-young-breaks-silence-video/story-e6frg13u-1111112790466?nk=fc69bdae54335af700f8016967e7eead

Debra replied to Johnny Young with posts on her FB page and it is here where the story becomes really interesting. In her posts she provides the unique details of the way things were organized at YTT and of the humiliation she had to go through when her abuse was uncovered as well as the treatment she, a real victim of abuse, was getting from the YTT people:

• “I am not afraid of being taken to court I am afraid of never having a day where I can speak in court of what I know and what happened and who it happened with. I have been threatened and told I am crazy a fake and most horridly, responsible for the abuse.”
• “Johnny Young states there was security for us. This is untrue. There were security guards at Channel 0 but they were not employed to look after the children and they were not employed by Lewis Young Productions.”
• “I was groomed, seduced and eventually raped and emotionally manipulated by Michael Bain Outtrim the boom operator on YTT.” 
• “…the relationship between myself and Michael Bain Outtrim who was later charged and convicted with carnal knowledge, began in the first year of YTT. At the end of that year I had already been sexually assaulted. Caravan Holiday was made in 1972. I was still 14 years old. In 1972 I attended sessions for counselling at the children’s court building which was on Batman Avenue. When the court case took place I was 15 years and Lewis Young productions employed a lawyer to have the case closed on the day.”  
• “he was employed to ensure the case was heard in a closed court. my mother and I did not know that was going to occur until the morning we arrived at court. the case was heard in a closed court.”
• “I was forced to be a witness for the police as the man was charged and later convicted. It has been said that I have accused persons working on YTT they should have been looking out for the children on the show.  Well that’s absolutely true. How did a man speak with a young girl enough to groom and seduce.? It took months. We met in vacant control rooms. My parents were not there to watch out for me. The parents were not in the studios or rehearsals or taping of shows. So who’s job was it to look after the children?
• Latest from Johnny Young is I am a low life.
• I am accused of harassing his family and having no morals.
• Dale Evans who worked at Channel 0 and knew Michael Outtrim has written on FB that Michael who she says LOVED me was charged and convicted and his life was ruined and so what do I want. I did not choose to ruin his life. He took that path when he first second third fourth fifth time attempted to have sex with me until he raped me and then after which made promises of love and marriage and when he was caught and charged pleaded not guilty took my love letters and poems and cards and scarf to the court house as evidence of my willingness.
• You say <>that I was a willing participant in all things including Michael Outtrim. And that I should forgive myself for what I was and did. I was 14 15 years Michael was 24 and he would after trying to have intercourse with me tell me that I was frigid cold and that I didn’t love him. I didn’t know what frigid meant but what I did know is that each time he tried it hurt a lot. I wasn’t so willing Dale. 

https://www.facebook.com/debra.a.byrne/posts/10153158842631982?fref=nf

• Maybe I was 13 when I started rehearsing for the show, not 12, but I was very, very young and the fact is I was underage and having a sexual relationship with a crew member and the court case that followed was extremely harrowing.
• The police told me that the Channel 0 executives believed I was nothing but a little moll who had seduced Michael. Michael’s solicitor said that Michael wasn’t the only man I was having sex with, he asked me if I had used tampons before I had sex with Michael . . . tears were streaming down my face, I keep swallowing and gagging on my words. . .

http://www.couriermail.com.au/archive/news/debra-byrne/story-e6frep2o-1111112470176?nk=fc69bdae54335af700f8016967e7eead

When all of it was happening no one yet knew that Debra had earlier been abused by her grandfather – she revealed it only in her book published many years later. Back in 1972 she was simply one of the many hopeful and innocent youngsters like everyone else on that show. And she didn’t willingly fall into that boom operator’s arms – it was a classical modus operandi of every pedophile that included brainwashing the girl and grooming and seducing her that took months.

Surprisingly, but what our poor Robson “didn’t understand” until the age of 30 this young girl already knew when she was fifteen. And this in spite of the fact that she was also confusing the abuse with “love” and was even attached to her abuser.

Occasionally it seemed to me that Robson used Debra Byrne’s 2006 book as a blueprint for his claims – when, for example, the molester was persuading her that it was “love”. However even here her behavior had a decided difference from Robson’s, because even despite all her confusion and “love” for the guy it didn’t stop the fifteen year old girl from telling the truth to the police — though it cost her a torrent of tears streaming down her face and lots of humiliation and ridicule from the company’s executives.

And please note that this girl had to break ice by her statements and persuade everyone that she was telling the truth – in contrast to Robson for whom nothing could be easier than testifying against Jackson. Back in 2005 the prosecution, media and the public didn’t need any persuasion as everyone was actually expecting accusations and even wanted Robson to confirm what they thought they knew about Jackson anyway.

And is it possible to imagine the stuttering and sobbing Debra defending her molester in court and sounding off-hand and easy as Robson was? And even cracking jokes like he did at the 2005 trial?

Absolutely not and this is how you know a difference between a true victim and a fake one.

In Debra’s case the YTT production company and its bosses were indeed responsible for their employee and the children in their care, and this again is in stark contrast with Robson who is now shaking for money those who could not exercise any control over the situation, even if there had been anything to control.

As to our supposition that Robson was abused by someone else when he was a very small kid, and this is why he didn’t realize what happened to him, and now he is covering up for this fact by making false claims against the innocent man now that we know how security was organized at the YTT venues and that a person who was supposed to help children was actually abusing them, the chances that something of the kind could happen to Robson are no longer as abstract as they initially looked.

And this becomes all the more true when we learn that Debra Byrne was sexually assaulted again and it again happened at one of the YTT venues.

The incident took place when after the trial Debra resumed her role on the TV show. The public didn’t know of her abuse as the case was heard in a closed court and the audience would have been perplexed if she had disappeared from the show without any explanation.

But for the YTT insiders Debra was obviously “damaged goods” and one of their crew took advantage of her again. Though this assault is only an alleged one, there is no reason for us not to believe Debra Byrne – she is a well-known Australian personality and she wouldn’t risk her reputation by telling fictional tales.

ABUSED AGAIN

In 2014 Debra Byrne told more about her work with YTT and revealed that when she was making a film “Caravan Holiday” together with other YTT young performers she was digitally raped in a swimming pool by one of the crew.

She also referenced another incident which allegedly took place while she and Johnny Young were filming a Red Tulip Chocolates commercial but didn’t elaborate on what happened in that studio.

Her post on FB read:

• Hello to you all and I hope that you will be able and willing to help me. [Michael Outtrim] was charged and convicted of carnal knowledge. I was the girl he abused. I was on young talent time and he was the boom operator on the show. He pleaded not guilty but after a horrendous experience of virgin testing and giving detailed sexual evidence at a very young age the court case was adjourned. [Outtrim] then pleaded guilty and took along with him the priest who spoke on Sundays mornings television from channel O. He was convicted and given 12 months good behavior. After that horrid experience I continued on with my part in YTT later in the summer the YTT team took part in the filming of Caravan Holiday… the cameraman on that film was [name withheld] after a days filming we the YTT and crew were swimming in a pool.  I don’t recall where the pool was but while I was in the pool [name withheld] swam up to me and digitally raped me. I was a very disturbed girl and was abused I believe because I was considered fair game. I am now asking if anyone can remember being in one of the smaller studios at channel O [name withheld] and I were filming a commercial for red Tulip Chocolates for a Easter show. I remember the sound man was a very short man and a friend of [name withheld] there were more than two people in the studio. If this jogs anyone’s memory and you are comfortable to speak with me about what took place in the studio please me.  Blessings, Debra Byrne

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715260/Former-child-star-Debra-Byrne-launches-Facebook-campaign.html

With the help of her YTT friends Debra seemed to find the name of the person responsible for her new sexual assault. Her cryptic notes on FB said:

• “His name was Barry but is now Barrie”
• “thank you I have confirmation of Barrie Windley working with Johnny Young at Television house. can anyone else remember him there?
• “just a little more info regarding Barrie Windley I am trying to locate him. I am told he worked with Johnny Young during the 80’s at Television House Lennox st Richmond.”

The notes were accompanied by a photo of Barrie Windley who turned out to be a middle-aged man pictured on stage close to a small boy with a microphone in his hands.

Debra Byrne found her offender’s name (screenshot from her FB)

Judging by the picture this person definitely worked with the children who performed on stage and had a contact with many of them.

It seems that Debra’s little investigation took her nowhere however this is not the point.

The point is that all of the above portrays a horrendous atmosphere of loose and anything-is-allowed attitude towards children that were engaged in show business at least back in the 1980s.

This monstrous atmosphere reigned on TV and in movie film studios and evidently at other venues where children were performing, most probably including schools like Robson’s too.

And it did not necessarily concern only YTT. It seems that this atmosphere was everywhere (remember the allegations about the “Hey Hey It’s Saturday” boss?) and the fact that child abuse was so wide-spread at the time is the real reason why it happened to Debra again and again. The entertainment business involving children attracted too many perverts who knew that kids were an easy target and no one would really listen to them if they complained.

So are there any questions now whether sexual abuse could happen to young Robson too? I have no doubt whatsoever that at least the chance for it was there.

If you are not yet convinced let us have a look at another case – that of Jamie Redfern who was another YTT member and who was by the way also filmed in that 1972 Caravan Holiday YTT movie on whose premises Debra Byrne was sexually assaulted.

JAMIE REDFERN

Jamie Redfern was 14 when he joined the YTT show original cast. The boy had a great voice and was a huge success with the Australian audience.

He was called “the Australian King of Pop”,  “a little boy with a big voice” and even had a separate “Jamie Redfern Show” with Johnny Young as a host and other YTT cast that sold a number of concerts at Melbourne’s Festival Hall.

What happened to Jamie Redfern is that after ten months with YTT he was taken on a long tour over the US by an admirer who was no other than Liberace.

Jamie Redfern and Liberace

Jamie Redfern’s success in the US was also a smashing one, but when he returned to Australia after a 16-months long tour with Liberace his career suddenly came to a halt.

There is no apparent reason for so sudden a change and I am not inclined to take seriously the information in one source that says that “his career ground to a halt after a dispute over a recording contract”.

This boy had too great a talent to be so easily rejected by the entertainment industry, especially after the rave reviews of his performances in the US.

Here he is singing “I’m your little boy”:

I must have become too nervous by now about the atmosphere surrounding those boys and girls back in the 80s and am probably imagining things, but it gives me a shudder to think that two years before Liberace took the 16-year old Scott Thorson into his home and a week later entered into a relationship with him (according to Thorson), Liberace also freely picked for himself another 15-year old and toured with him for 16 months.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission interview with Johnny Young showed how the naïve YTT staff was thrilled by this exclusive opportunity for their protégé. They most probably didn’t know of Liberace’s ways or were too trustful of others, but whichever way it was it did put the young boy at a risk of being abused:

JOHNNY YOUNG: He came in, he was only 13, 14 or something, and, er, what a voice. He’d could just stand there and sing a song without any accompaniment. You know, the true boy soprano with a really, really big powerful voice.

MARIE-CLAIRE WOLLASTON: Jamie’s star was rising fast. He was having hit after hit in the charts, wooing audiences and picking up nearly as many awards as he had fans. But it was when he was presented the King of Pop award by Liberace that his life changed forever.

LIBERACE: Incidentally, Johnny, I’ve been watching the show and I’ve enjoyed all the performers who have been on and that little boy, that Jamie, he’s fantastic. He really… I’d like to take him back to the States.

JOHNNY YOUNG: I thought he was only joking and, a few days later, we got a call from Seymour Heller who’s a delightful man who was also managing Shirley MacLaine and Debbie Reynolds and a whole bunch of other people in America. He rang us and said, “Look, we really would like to take him to America and have him as a special guest on Liberace’s program.”

http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_people/Transcripts/s817807.htm

Jamie Redfern is not giving much comment on Liberace and just noted that “there were rumors at the time” which he clearly doesn’t like to dwell on. Now he is a happily married man with two daughters who is running the Academy of Dance and Acting in Melbourne and hosts his own national television show “Jamie Redfern’s Superkids” which airs weekly on the Australian TV.

But what Jamie Redfern does admit is that he is battling depression, same as some other YTT child stars.

As it happens, depression has left it’s indelible mark on me in ways I could never have imagined, and my family and I continue to deal with it’s accursed and seemingly relentless impact on our lives on a “one day at a time” basis. 

<>I know some people like that, and I bet you do too. A number of my Young Talent Time brothers and sisters fight depression – although watch them perform live and I can bet you couldn’t tell which of them it is. 

Oh, and by the way, … yes, I’m a battler too ! 

http://www.tooraktimes.com.au/content.php/2682-Liberace-as-controversial-as-ever-!

Depression is not necessarily connected with the abuse in one’s childhood and may easily be the result of frustrated childhood hopes, a decline in the career and a myriad other reasons (which are equally true for Robson).

But when Robson is now complaining of depression and links it to some sexual abuse, let us first note that he is not the only one to have it – several other child stars from exactly the same surrounding are suffering from it too. And secondly, if sex abuse is the real reason for his depression the trail is definitely taking us back to his childhood years in Australia for reasons explained above.

Johnny Young doesn’t seem to be engaged in any of it and there were never any allegations against him personally. His company and entertainment business involving children attracted too many perverts at the time and it was difficult to know who was up to what there. So if there was any guilt on John Young’s part, it looks like it was too much trust in the wrong people and too much focus on his business being a success, with everything else being a side matter.

And if it wasn’t just too much trust how else can we explain that after Jamie Redfern’s time with Liberace the YTT staff thought of nothing better than offer him another hopeful teenager?

This second boy was Dennis Walter who was 15-years old and had a uniquely deep baritone unusual for his age. Listen to him here (audio only): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r0n75OoYxQ).

The YTT staff apparently meant well and suggested that Liberace had a look at Dennis Walter after Jamie Redfern returned from America.

“Set to follow in the footsteps of boy wonder Jamie Redfern, Walter was the second Young Talent Time discovery destined for international greatness under the watch of Liberace. But while Redfern went on to US television and touring with rave reviews, for Walter the outcome was another story. 

“Jamie’s time was coming to an end and Liberace was touring Australia, so it was suggested by the Young Talent Time people, that he have a look at me and hear my voice. It was the novelty of the skinny 15 year old with the big deep voice,” said Walter.

“There were about 20 people and he listened to me sing and there was all this excitement about me going to the States.”

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2014/06/from-young-talent-time-to-liberace.html

Liberace did indeed choose Dennis as his second companion for performing in the US, however something went wrong with that project – after the initial joint rehearsal with Liberace and “some material organized” the boy was taken to the US where Liberace went on a tour but the boy stayed all alone. Liberace’s manager (a very nice person as they say) invited him to his home on one occasion but that was it – Dennis Walter never met Liberace again and returned to Australia where he pursued his career of a singer for 40 years ever since.

The elation of the YTT staff about their young protégés going to the US with the great Liberace shows that they evidently didn’t know of the performer’s succession of underage male sexual partners which is no secret to anyone now. But irrespective of their good intentions those boys were put at a risk, and no one can guarantee that something of the kind didn’t happen to the very young Robson wonder kid.

As a final word to this saga let me tell you that after the YTT show was closed the gay issue had an unexpected and a totally ridiculous follow-up. Robson had already left for the US by then, but the story of Johnny Young’s Talent Time would be totally incomplete if we didn’t mention this episode.

“IS HE A PEDOPHILE?”

At the beginning of the 1990s Terry Higgins who was a long-time Young Talent Time studio director was diagnosed with AIDS. The YTT show had already been closed by then and Johnny Young was going through a time of big trouble – he had lost his business, family house and even his marriage. However Terry was a friend of his and when he was diagnosed with AIDS Johnny Young financially supported him. And when Terry sought some miracle cure “ozone therapy” in the Philippines Johnny followed him there.

There were gay and non-gay patients at the clinic and Johnny Young stayed there for 12 months until one day the Philippines authorities raided them. It turned out that the clinic had been run without a permit and as soon as the police appeared all the staff including doctors and nurses vanished within moments. The police arrested Young as the most visible target and threw him into a military prison on charges that he was running an illegal AIDS clinic.

Subsequently all charges were dropped, but Young’s public image was damaged by media coverage of rumors regarding his sexuality. Soon after Johnny Young and his friend returned to Australia Terry Higgins died and besides the shock of his friend’s death Johnny Young was devastated to learn that his own reputation had been ruined.

He explained it on the Australian TV program in 2000:

JOHNNY: Then when I came back it even got worse. Because, and it didn’t occur to me at the time… It’s like “well Johnny Young does this programme with children. What’s he doing in an AIDS Clinic?” was the thought, right, and it raises thoughts in people’s heads. “What is he.. gay.. Why has he got a gay friend?” You know he was a friend. The fact that he was gay has nothing to do with it. I’ve got lots of gay friends and Irish friends, and Jewish friends and Catholic friends and all sorts of friends. But that was the toughest part. 

LISA HOWES (YTT music coordinator): There were always rumours and stories about John because no one could ever believe that he was ah as sweet and as flawless as he appeared. And of course he wasn’t. Of course he had flaws. And I know all the years that I worked with the show and afterwards there were lots of rumours about. “Well any grown man that spends so much time with young children must have a problem there.” I think that 50% of the audience that regularly watched the show watched it because they loved him. I think 50% of the audience that regularly watched the show loved to watch it because they hated him.

MARY REILLY: I remember one of the guys in the group saying when he returned at the airport. He had cameras shoved in his face and reporters screaming at him, you know. “Is John Young Gay? Is he a paedophile?” It just went into absolute hysteria.

JOHNNY: This guy saw me and he said “that’s Johnny Young.. get the kids out of here. I don’t want to be in the same place as he is.” Now that just devastated me. It just completely devastated me. I couldn’t believe it. It knocked me about. I couldn’t talk to people for days. I couldn’t believe it had got to that. And then I thought, well how do I defend this. Well you can’t. You know if I defend it, it’s like ‘though protesteth too much.’ If I’ve ever been inappropriate with a juvenile, with a younger person, don’t you think they would have come out of the woodwork by now to get their lousy hundred thousand dollars off the media for the expose. But there’s nothing to expose.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s97797.htm

Though Johnny Young surely has his own flaws the ungrounded accusations thrown at him in the 90s made me side with him at the last moment. After seeing what has been done to MJ, we know that nothing can be worse than unjust allegations against the innocent.

Johnny Young is right – there is nothing to expose about him.  He is absolutely not a child abuser and his biggest flaw as I’ve said seems to be too much trust in the wrong people, and this is probably the biggest reason why all these misfortunes fell on him and the children in his care.

He has learned his lesson hard and it took him much time to revive his reputation and career. His current business has returned to its former success – a new Johnny Young Talent School has been established and in 2012 the Australian television revived his YTT show with a new cast and host to look for new talent among Australian children.

And in 2013 Johnny Young’s Talent School visited Disneyland again…

CONCLUSIONS

If we go back to Robson and reply to the question whether he could be really abused in his early years during his time with the YTT school, after all we have heard about this business an honest answer would be YES, HE COULD. Considering his surrounding and all the precedents we’ve learned of, the sexual abuse of the small boy while he was in Australia cannot be absolutely ruled out.

In addition some other conclusions can be made here.

Robson decided to leave Australia not so much due to Michael Jackson. A much more probable reason for his decision was the closure of the YTT show, the indefinite future of his dance school and no more publicity opportunities for Robson owing to Johnny Young’s own misfortunes. Robson’s mother no longer saw any prospects for her son on the Australian TV and local entertainment industry and this is why both decided to try their luck in the US.

So when the seven of them travelled to America in 1990 it was a sort of a reconnaissance trip and this is why they stayed in the US for almost a month. Michael Jackson was sought after also for purely practical reasons.

At least a year prior to their September 1991 move Joy’s relations with her husband deteriorated and when they finally decided to part the younger children followed the mother to the US, while their older brother stayed with the father. We can very well guess that the plan to go to the US was supported by Joy’s parents (with whom they travelled to the US) but was not supported by the relatives on the father’s side who thought it “insane” as Wade Robson admitted.

And Michael absolutely didn’t insist on their coming to the US. Prior to their move they hadn’t seen each other for a year but when the final decision was taken he didn’t leave them alone, assisted them in their relocation and helped to get some foothold in America.

And now Robson is paying Michael back by placing on him the responsibility for his sexual abuse which judging by his own story could happen to him only at a very early age (if ever at all) and at the hands of another person.

Michael Jackson is an easy target and Robson is taking advantage of it now. By accusing the real perpetrator Robson can gain nothing except negative publicity and the recollections that hurt, however by accusing the MJ Estate he can grab a big prize – if luck is on his side – and get even with them for refusing him a lucrative job on the Immortal and other MJ projects.

And isn’t it a marvel that all these conclusions arise from the way Robson is telling his story himself?

AFTERWORD

What I would also like people to realize is that the situation with Robson may turn out to be more complex than we think it to be.

The choice is not necessarily between “he was abused and is telling the truth” and “he was not abused and is telling a lie”. There might be a combination of it – he could be abused, but is lying that it was MJ.

Someone could have paid him to place the guilt of other(s) on an innocent person.

Recently the text of Safechuck’s civil complaint against MJ companies surfaced and left a clear impression that Safechuck is either completely mad or his text was inspired by hard-core pedophiles. The filth he is writing is staggering and can be compared only with the creations of Victor Gutierrez and the like.

The text is a complete fake and one recognizes it from a simple fact that though Safechuck is describing the early years of his association with Michael Jackson his story looks like a kind of a summary of everything that has ever been invented about Michael by his haters for the past 30 years.

WHEN THINGS ESCALATE IN THE REVERSE ORDER

For example, back in the 1990s no one even dared claim that MJ showed to children any erotic magazines or even possessed any, because everyone knew that Michael was still very much a Jehovah Witness and was “very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid” as Macaulay Culkin’s father put it.

At the time he was indeed squeaky clean as Deepak Chopra called him – no drugs, no alcohol and no meat. And in his free time he used to read the poetry by Sufi and Tagore (see the post about the books Michael read then). Though being almost 30 Michael was still so “proper” that he wouldn’t use a single word of profanity – it would “cause him to all but faint” as Kit Culkin incredulously noted.

So seeing Michael the way he was it never even dawned on Jordan and Evan Chandler that it was possible to lie that Michael had shown any “porn” to the boy.

The first lies about it appeared only 12 years later, after some legal adult magazines were seized by the police from Michael’s home. Gavin Arvizo jumped at the chance and happily claimed that he had been shown some of them. To forge the evidence Sneddon attempted to plant Gavin’s fingerprints on those magazines right in front of the grand jury but the jury noticed that the boy was not wearing gloves, and the lie fell flat anyway as the magazines in question were found to be issued several months after the family left Neverland.

The testimonies of Jason Francia, Robson, Barnes and Culkin at the 2005 trial also made it clear that Michael had never shown them any explicit materials and they learned only at the trial that Michael possessed them.

Like all others Robson had no idea who the adult magazines he was shown belonged to and the prosecution had to resort to discussing them in terms of “assuming that he knew they were Michael Jackson’s”.

A quote from Robson’s testimony:

1 When you were a young child, did Michael

2 Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit

3 material?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show

6 sexually explicit material to any child?

7 A. No.

22 BY MR. ZONEN:

23 Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that

24 Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature

25 that’s before you right now?

26 A. Right now I did.

27 Q. All the years that you have known Michael —

28 A. Actually, no one’s told me where this came

1 from.

2 Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s

3 residence.

4 A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

5 Q. All right. And you had never, ever known

6 that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit

7 material?

8 A. No.

9 Q. This is something new that you’re learning

10 just today; is that right?

11 A. Yes. 

Apparently Robson doesn’t remember how convincing his testimony was at the 2005 trial because now his suit claims that MJ did show it to him. However Safechuck who was allegedly an earlier “victim” of MJ takes his lie even further  – he says that he not only watched “porn” with MJ but also movies where “children were masturbating and engaged in sexual activities”.

His civil suit says:

“.. together they would watch porn films. Some of the porn films were heterosexual in nature as were the pornographic books the Decedent showed to Plaintiff. Decedent also showed Plaintiff movies in which children were masturbating, and told him that they were “not really porn”. The movies that Decedent referred to as “porn” involved adult sexual activities, whereas the films where children engaged in sexual activities were “not porn”

This bold statement is surely meant for those uninitiated who don’t know that the FBI scanned all MJ’s computers and never found anything even remotely connected to the above – no traces of the respective websites visited, no photos, no nothing, and of course no movies of that kind.

You’ll say that MJ could get them from a nearby rent-a-movie shop. My vivid imagination is painting to me the sight of Michael Jackson going to a shop and renting there porn or movies where children were engaged in sexual activities…. or his aides doing it under false names……. where are the receipts then? … and witnesses of all this activity? …. and why didn’t they find the owners of those shops?…. and where were the tabloids? …. and vigilant Sneddon?….and the FBI?… and what were the names of those movies?…. and did those movies exist at all?

Indeed, are films showing “children masturbating and engaged in sexual activities” on sale in the US? No, they are not? Then isn’t it hilarious to assume that they were freely produced and available in late 80s–early 90s which Safechuck is describing?

The whole story is comic science fiction of course, and if you are honest with yourself you will agree that Safechuck’s tale is intended solely for shocking the public and running away with a lie.

However the biggest mistake Safechuck is making is aggravating his story to a point when it sounds filthier than the stories of those who lied about MJ decades after Safechuck.

Once every ten years some opportunist emerged in MJ’s surrounding (Chandler 1993, Arvizo 2003, Robson 2013) and each of them learned from the previous one and incorporated the earlier story into their own tale embellishing it even further.

But Safechuck is supposed to be before all of them and simple chronology suggests that in order to sound truthful his account should be much more subdued than the one by Arvizo, for example – especially when we consider Michael’s ways in late 80s and a theoretical escalation of the alleged “sexual” activities.

The crux of the matter is that Michael of the 80s simply can’t be worse than Michael of the 90s or 2000s – however Safechuck is portraying him as such.

Let me repeat that back in the 80s Michael was still very much a Jehovah Witness and was very genuine and ardent in following the laws taught to him by his mother. He couldn’t make himself celebrate Christmas or his own birthday, let alone watch some “bad” films involving, God forbid, “children in sexual activities”. Especially considering that such films were not even made and the police never found traces of them in any of Michael’s homes.

Safechuck is describing things that defy both the chronology and simple logic, and this makes his story impossible even in principle. 

MORE ABSURDITY

The same is true not only for the alleged “porn” Michael never showed Safechuck (or anyone at all), but for all other parts of his lawsuit. Look, for example, at another of Safechuck’s statements, this time concerning the 2005 trial.

According to Safechuck in 2005 he allegedly confessed to his mother that Michael was a “bad man” and “he was abused”, but he asked her not to disclose it to Michael Jackson and when Michael requested her to testify in his defense she “pretended she was not aware of the abuse” (paragraph 63):

63. A few days after this telephone conversation, Decedent called Plaintiff’s mother to try to get her to convince Plaintiff to testify on his behalf at the criminal trial. Decedent also wanted both of Plaintiff’s parents to testify on his behalf. One to two days prior to Decendent’s call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the call he had received from Decedent and that he had declined to testify at the criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that the Decedent was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the briefest statement that he had been abused. Plaintiff told his mother not to let Decedent know that she had found out. Plaintiff was panicked that Decedent would find out that he had told his mother. When the Decedent called Plaintiff’s mother, she pretended that she was not aware of Decedent’s earlier threatening call to her son, or about the abuse”

Imagine the situation for yourself. Your child tells you that he or she was abused when young –  will it be possible for you to speak quietly to the offender the next day and “pretend that you don’t know”? Or will you be still furious and hysterical and tell him that you will not only refuse to testify in his defense but will also approach the prosecution instead?

Of course Safechuck is trying to explain it by a tale that he was terrorized by MJ:

62. In 2005, Decedent contacted the Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his behalf in the criminal trial against Decedent in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 25 years old at the time. Decedent started out the telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, Decedent got angry and threatened him. Plaintiff told the Decedent never to call him again, and that he wanted a normal life. The Decedent got very angry and continued to threaten Plaintiff, telling him that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get Plaintiff for perjury from the 1993 Chandler trial. Plaintiff had never experienced the Decedent being so angry. Plaintiff was also panicked about the Decedent talking to his mother – fearful that she would find out about his abuse by the Decedent and be threatened by Decedent’s lawyers.

Firstly, the story about the Chandler “trial” is meant only for the uninitiated – the young generation may indeed not know that in 1993 there were no charges brought against MJ and absolutely no trial. This is a deliberate invention on the part of Safechuck and his lawyers.

Secondly, in 2005 Michael wasn’t calling his witnesses himself and it was only his lead lawyer who decided who of them would be asked to testify depending on their frame of mind, stamina and the ability to withstand a harsh pressure from the other side. Remember that it was Thomas Mesereau who decided not to call Frank Cascio – Frank is a nice guy and his book is the quintessence of truth about MJ, but his interviews show that when he talks he can be easily lost for words and may sound not convincing enough.

Thirdly, it is impossible to imagine Michael threatening anyone at any time of his life, let alone the moment when he was barely alive during the trial. It was also impossible for him to insist on Safechuck’s testimony – who would need so unreliable a witness if there were three witnesses ready to testify in his defense of their own free will and Thomas Mesereau was still thinking whether he would resort to them at all?

And finally, why did his mother “pretend that she wasn’t aware of her son’s abuse”? What power on earth can force a mother to pretend such a thing?  And if she really did, shouldn’t she be held responsible for never coming out and withholding the key evidence?

The truth of the matter is much simpler of course  – Safechuck is a psychotic coward who didn’t want to be involved in a trial and when his own parents evidently urged him to speak up for Michael he defended his cowardice by degrading Michael in some way. His mother understood the problem and this is why she was calm and quiet when talking to MJ’s lawyers and explained that their family would prefer to carry on with their normal life rather than be involved in a scandalous trial.

The psychotic and embittered Safechuck is indeed able to blame Michael for all his life misfortunes and frustrated hopes and this is why he is inventing all sort of crazy stories about MJ now – up to him being “married to him” in some secret ritual (paragraph 43).

And though Michael is not alive and cannot look Safechuck in the face to make him ashamed for what he is doing, it is still possible for us to check up a few things in Safechuck’s claim and this will make it clear what a virtuoso Safechuck is in spreading innuendoes about his old friend and twisting facts where there is absolutely nothing to twist.

FACTS VS INNUENDOES

Safechuck’s complaint begins with a little of his biography.

From paragraph 7 we learn that he met Michael Jackson when he was nine. For two years before that Safechuck’s family had already been seeking a career in movies for their son as he started working on television at age 7. This is how and where Michael must have met him – through some TV or movie agents who suggested the boy for a Pepsi commercial:

7. Plaintiff was born in Simi Valley, California on February 28, 1987. Plaintiff started working in television commercials at the age of 7-8 in approximately 1984/1985. In the late 1986/early 1987, Plaintiff was hired to work on a Pepsi commercial shoot. Karen Faye, the Decedent’s hairstylist, was present at the shoot and for the first conversation between Plaintiff and Decedent in Decedent’s trailer. Following the conversation, Decedent asked Plaintiff to sit on the stage and watch as Decedent performed for the commercial shoot.

The next episode of the suit is a polite letter written by Michael to Jimmy Safechuck on March 10, 1987.  The text makes it clear that Michael was replying to the boy’s letter though a clear attempt is made to present it as Michael’s initiative.

Another small note: since Safechuck wants to involve in his lawsuit Norma Staikos (Doe 2) who worked for MJJ Productions at the time he specifically mentions that Michael’s letter was written on the office stationery.

8. Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, Decedent wrote a letter to Plaintiff on Doe 2’s stationery dated March 10, 1987. It stated:

“Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Decedent’s signature]”

The Decedent also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot together.

The detail we learn from the above is that after shooting the Pepsi commercial MJ did not maintain any contact with Safechuck for several months and at some point the Safechuck family decided to remind Michael of themselves – the nine-year old Jimmy wrote a letter to Michael to which Michael replied on March 10, 1987.

Paragraph 9 continues:

9. After receiving Decedent’’s letter, Plaintiff and his family were invited to dinner by Decedent to Decedent’s home on Hayvenhurst Avenue in Encino, California (“Hayvenhurst house”). The invitation was made by Decedent through Jolie Levine, Decedent’s then secretary/personal assistant. Ms. Levine later became Decedent’s production assistant on the “BAD” Tour, and his production coordinator on the “BAD” album.

The above introduces to us another player in the saga – Jolie Levine, who was Michael Jackson’s secretary at the time (not to be confused with Quincy Jones’ daughter of the same name) to whom a tabloid author Christopher Andersen attributed a lot of dirt allegedly said about Michael, none of which she confirmed to the authorities as I hear.

This character may be instrumental to Safechuck’s case as she was “one of the MJJ Productions” company whom Safechuck is now finding responsible for his association with Michael, and if she surfaces she will surely be confronted with all the lies she allegedly told about Michael.

Before we pay attention to a deception in the timing of Safechuck’s story please read the rest of paragraphs 9 and 10:

9. … Plaintiffs’s parents accompanied him to Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house for the dinner. After eating, all four of them watched the film Batteries Not Included in a small home theater in Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house. During the visit, when Decedent was alone with Plaintiff, Decednet gave Plaintiff presents – a globe and $700. Plaintiff’s parents were not aware that Decedent had given their son money at the time, and when they discovered it later, they asked Decedent not to give Plaintiff money. In response to their request, Decedent giggled and said that he could not help himself.

10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent. Plaintiff’s parents suggested that he invited Decedent to come over to their home. Decedent said yes, and Plaintiff and his parents drove over to the Hayvenhurst house to pick up Decedent and bring him back to their home. On multiple occasions after the first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, either Plaintiff and his family, or Plaintiff on his own, would go over to see Decedent at the Hayvenhurst house.

Reading this smooth story you will certainly get the impression that the events came in a close succession of one after another and followed Michael’s letter sent to Safechuck in March. This effect is an intended one and is created deliberately to produce the impression of how “intensive” their friendship with Michael Jackson was.

The reality of course is very much different. Though some scraps of the above may be true when you bring these scraps together the story will be a totally different one.

The thing is that between the time when the polite letter was sent and the invitation to a dinner at Hayvenhurst at least seven or eight months passed, during which time the nine-year old aspiring actor surely bombarded Michael with more letters – after all Michael asked him to keep writing and even promised him that “maybe they would work together again”.

Learning the approximate time of that dinner at Hayvenhurst is easy as the telephone episode came on Thanksgiving day and the visit was “shortly before that”. In 1987 Thanksgiving day fell on November 26, so the visit was sometime in autumn and when we learn that Michael went on a Bad tour on September 12^th and had a break in the tour on October 13 – November 10 we can even narrow down the date to early November when Michael was in the US.

So while Safechuck is trying to present to us a picture of Michael being greatly “interested” in him Michael was busy with something else and was actually interested in someone totally different. That summer he was auditioning for a girl for his short film “The Way You Make Me Feel” and was very much impressed by Tatiana Thumbtzen as the right girl.

The video was shot in September 1987, after which Michael went to Japan on the first leg of his Bad tour. The happy look on Michael’s face when shooting that video is telling us all we need to know about his frame of mind at the time.

September 1987.  Michael is shooting The Way You Make Me Feel with Tatiana Thumbtzen, and the happy look on his face is telling us  all we need to know about his real interest at the time.

On October 13 -November 10 Michael had a temporary break in the tour due to some cancellations in New Zealand, and went back to the US where the video of The Way You Make Me Feel was finished and released on MTV on October 31.

It was probably after that that he invited the Safechucks to a dinner at his house, and we may be sure that it came after a lot of letters from the boy sent to him since March.

A shot from “Batteries Not Included”

The visit to Hayvenhurst was nothing out of ordinary. It was a dinner followed watching a newly released family-comic science fiction movie – the type of film Michael Jackson really liked.

The movie was produced by Steven Spielberg and was about a family of small extraterrestrial living machines (father machine, mother machine and their children) that saved an apartment block under threat from property development.

Why did Michael give to Safechuck a globe and $700 during that visit? A globe is an educational tool to make the boy interested in geography and $700 were surely meant for the family. Safechuck’s father was a garbage collector and it was a delicate way for Michael to give them some financial help. In the same way Michael tried to help Murray when AEG Live was not paying him – he used to pass some $100 bills via his son Prince knowing that a child could not be refused.

Safechuck’s poor but proud family naturally told Michael not to do it again (though accepted the money) and to save everyone from the embarrassment Michael laughed and said that he “could not help himself” which was absolutely true. He really couldn’t help himself when he saw someone in need of money or attention.

Soon after that dinner Michael returned to Australia, and “shortly after that” came a telephone call on Thanksgiving day which Safechuck is describing.

Who called whom on that day?

Safechuck’s text avoids an answer to this question saying that “Plaintiff was on the telephone with the Decedant”. This vague wording makes it clear that the call came from the Safechucks as otherwise they would have made it a special point that it was Michael. Indeed, it was a perfect opportunity for the Safechucks to thank Michael for the dinner and remind him of their son again – they wanted him to pursue a career in the movies and Michael Jackson was planning to go into movies after the tour.

So it was them who badly needed Michael Jackson and were keen on cultivating a friendship with him, and not the other way about.

Safechuck’s text says that during that Thanksgiving call his parents suggested that Jimmy should invite Michael to their home and Michael said yes, and we again have the impression that almost immediately after the call Jimmy’s father picked Michael up and brought him to their home.

 But this was impossible as Michael was in Australia. The next day after Thanksgiving day Michael was performing in Brisbaine and was to meet the winner of the MJ dancers’ contest who was no other than Wade Robson, aged five. The day after (November 28) Michael had his second concert in Brisbaine to which he invited Wade Robson to perform with him on stage and a day later (November 29) Wade Robson and his mother went to his hotel to meet him again and had a two hours’ talk with him.

That show in Brisbaine was Michael’s last on his first leg of the Bad tour and on November 30 he returned to the US. So any invitations to Safechuck’s home could take place only in December 1987 at the earliest and this is when Michael evidently agreed to visit the family’s home.

The next paragraph in Safechuck’s story surprises us with the news that the second time he visited Hayvenhurst his parents “dropped him off” there and went to dinner (elsewhere?) while the boy “stayed with the Decedent”:

11. On the second occasion that Plaintiff went to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff was dropped off by his parents. Plaintiff’s parents went to dinner while Plaintiff stayed with Decedent. Plaintiff and Decedent drove off in Decedent’s Mercedes and passed out $100 bills to homeless people. Decedent said to one homeless man, “You do know how much this is,” and then landed him a $100 bill.

After reflecting on what it could mean I realized that the dinner could be at Hayvenhurst after all, only Michael and the boy probably didn’t stay for dinner and went driving to find the homeless, and this is when Michael handed them out $100 bills. To me it sounds like Christmas time and Michael sincerely wanting the homeless to have some joy.

Paragraph 12 is about the Safechucks’ third visit to Hayvenhurst and seeing Michael’s recording studio there. And since the text mentions Jermaine Jackson there this episode could take place not earlier than January 1988:

12. The third time Plaintiff visited the Hayvenhurst house he was accompanied by his parents and they took a tour of Decedent’s recording studio which was located there. Three of Decedent’s brothers were in the studio working, including Jermaine Jackson, and they all exchanged a quick hello.

Jermaine Jackson moved into Hayvenhurst with his second wife Margaret Maldonado in early January 1988 and according to her book he and brothers were indeed working there on their new album. This places the Safechucks’ third visit to Hayvenhurst at approximately the first half of January.

As is usual with all horror stories Safechuck is building up suspension and in paragraph 13 suddenly raises the subject of Michael’s bedroom (how can any story about MJ go without a bedroom?). Safechuck says that he would hang out in Michael’s room during his “many” visits to Hayvenhurst.

To add even more thrill to the narration he notes that Michael had a staircase on the exterior of the house leading to his bedroom over which “anyone could enter it” and this immediately plants all sort of horrible ideas into our suspicious minds.

However none of it has any bearing on his claim as first of all, absolutely no “sleepovers” took place at the time and second, Safechuck is lying that he made “multiple” visits to Hayvenhurst. The visits were few and his own follow-up text is proving it.

13. During his many visits to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff would “hang out” with the Decedent in Decedent’s bedroom, and spend time with him in Decedent’s dance room. There was a staircase leading to Decedent’s bedroom on the exterior of the Havenhurst house so that one could enter if from the outside. The upstairs portion of Decedent’s bedroom overlooked the main, downstairs portion of his bedroom. It was reachable by a spiral staircase from the main part of the bedroom below. Decedent kept the mannequins that he collected in the upstairs portion of the bedroom, and positioned them so that they looked down to the lower portion. Plaintiff and Decedent played with the mannequins on Plaintiff’s many visits. The main, downstairs portion of Decedent’s bedroom had a giant glove that was lit from the inside. Decedent had a closet located in the upstairs portion of his bedroom on the left side, that he kept filled with jackets from his past music videos and performances. Decedent let Plaintiff touch and play with his many jackets. Decedent let Plaintiff try on the “Captain EO” jacket, and gave him the Thriller jacket to keep. Decedent took back the Thriller jacket a few years later, saying that the jacket would still belong to the Plaintiff, but they he needed to display it in a museum. The Decedent told Plaintiff that there would be a plaque saying “on loan from Jimmy Safechuck”. In the meantime, the Decedent let Plaintiff choose between two of the other jackets used in the Thriller video – the “Zombie” jacket and the “clean” one.

If you think that all these memories are provided here just for fun you are greatly mistaken. Safechuck is trying to explain to us that he was special to Michael and became very close to him during those visits (and that this was part of the “grooming” process of course).

In reality none of it is true. Safechuck was not “special” to Michael as he allowed almost anyone to his closet and gave his jackets as gifts to children on a regular basis.

Michael Jackson gave the 14-year old David Smitee his jacked and sequined glove. “The boy was in heaven”, his mother said

Look at David Smithee for example to whom Michael gave his “Beat it” jacket and a sequined glove:

David Smithee, a 14-year-old cystic fibrosis sufferer, fulfilled a lifelong dream when he was invited to Michael’s Encino family home through the auspices of the ‘Brass Ring Society’, an organization that fulfilled the wishes of terminally ill children.

The pair shared an enjoyable afternoon watching movies in the private screening room, eating lunch and playing video games.

Before leaving, David was treated to a black sequined glove and Michael’s red leather jacket from his hit, ‘Beat It’.  Seven weeks later, the young boy passed away, but not without having had his last wish granted. http://www.michaeljacksonslegacy.org/index.php/his-humanitarian-work

Actually the way Michael spent that afternoon with David Smithee is strikingly in common with the treatment he gave to Safechuck and his parents.

But let’s go back to Safechuck so-called “multiple” visits to Hayvenhurst and see how we can learn that he is lying.

Michael’s timeline of that period proves that Safechuck’s visits were limited to a short period of a week or so. The available period spanned from the moment he saw Jermaine (in the first half of January) to January 21 when Michael began rehearsing for the second leg of Bad tour. The rehearsals were  in Florida and covered the period of January 22 – February 18, 1988.

After the last rehearsal to which he invited 420 children Michael went home for a few days and on February 23 he was already performing in Kansas City on the second leg of his tour.

There were no more returns to Hayvenhurst as the deal over Neverland was finalized on February 28, 1988 (according to Gloria Berlin, MJ’s real estate agent) and Michael moved to Neverland sometime in May. The move took place within a couple of weeks between the American and European legs of his tour.

All these details of Michael’s exceptionally busy schedule are important for realizing that Safechuck is gravely exaggerating his place in Michael Jackson’s life. With so dense a schedule and so little time Michael spent at his Hayvenhurst house there was no chance for Safechuck to make “multiple” visits there. His visits were few and this is actually the reason why “he was never introduced to the other family members except Jermaine and Janet Jackson once” as he complained in his lawsuit.

Now Safechuck is making himself out as a very close friend of MJ or Michael being “interested” in the boy. But Michael treated him no better and no worse than other children around him – he treated all children well. And there was absolutely no special interest in Safechuck as their scarce meetings often initiated by the Safechucks themselves prove it.

However the text insinuates the opposite and following the usual haters’ pattern the next paragraph says that the Decedent “began telephoning the boy” and “he became part of their family”.

It is even annoying that all these insinuations are so predictable – if we were to write a story of the “abuse” we would do a much better job than Safechuck.

14. Decedent began telephoning Plaintiff at home on a frequent and regular basis. Their relationship had grown to a point where Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family. Decedent would call Plaintiff at home when he was alone or lonely, and Plaintiff’s family would drive over to the Hayvenhurst house and pick up the Decedent and bring him back to Plaintiff’s home in Simi Valley. One time Plaintiff and Decedent went to the part in Simi Valley. They shot some video footage there that ended up in the closing credits of one of Decedent’s documentaries. On another occasion, Plaintiff and Decedent went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley. The Decedent was wearing a disguise and the saleperson at eh Zales store called the police. When the police arrived and saw that it was the Decedent, they did not pursue the matter. On another occasion, Plaintiff’s father picked up Decedent from the Havenhurst house, and they had to drive away quickly in order to evade the paparazzi. Plaintiff and his family viewed this to be exciting – as was the entire experience of being with a “star” with such celebrity status as Decedent. At this time, Decedent was in his late 20’s, Plaintiff was approximately 8-9 years old, and Plaintiff’s parents were in their 40’s.

Okay, all these beautiful things could easily take place on that first and probably only visit to Safechuck’s home in early December 1987.

Michael was a busy man and still needed time for other things  – like releasing in December 1987 the single “The Way You Make Me Feel” and having a sort of an affair with Tatiana Thumbzten and sorting out matters with her and his managers after she famously kissed him on stage. And also attending the wedding of his attorney John Branca and releasing the “Man In The Mirror” single along with a video (all in January 1988), as well as shooting new Pepsi commercials (a four part story) and having a round of rehearsals in Florida (on January 21- February 18). And also finalizing his deal on Neverland by February 28, 1988 and moving in there, as well as preparing and going on the second leg of his Bad tour.

In short, Jimmy Safechuck was not the center of Michael’s life though he is trying hard to make it look like he was.

And there was not any “relationship” between them either. Michael began telephoning him in 1988 for the only reason htat he was staying away from home – first in Florida and then in various American cities he visited on a tour.  Speaking on the phone was Michael’s favorite pastime and actually his only door to the outside world from hotel rooms where Bill Bray used to lock him in to save him from a temptation to go out.

Actually the only thing that comes across to us through Safechuck’s statement about Michael “beginning to call” him is that previously he did not call him at all.

By the way Michael was 29 years old at the time, Safechuck was nearly 10 (and not 8-9 as his vague text says) and his parents were already in their 40s. These age details are important too as his suit is pretending that Michael had a long “relationship” with the boy – almost since age 8.

The next paragraph says:

15. In 1988, when Plaintiff was 10 years old and Decedent was 29-30 years old, Decedent invited Plaintiff to a convention in Hawaii at which the Pepsi commercial they had both appeared in was being featured. The Plaintiff attended the Pepsi convention with Decedent and appeared with him on stage. Decedent and/or Does 2 and 3 made all the arrangements and paid all the expenses for Plaintiff and his mother to fly first class to Hawaii, travel by limousine to the Kahala Hilton Hotel and for all of their accommodations and expenses during the convention. Plaintiff and his mother travelled together with Decedent’s entourage. Plaintiff stayed with his mother in her hotel room on that trip. On later trips, when Plaintiff travelled with Decedent, his parents would never have a room near Decedent’s room, and would be on a different floor.

Oh, so now we know how Michael and Safechuck found themselves at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in 1988 – it was a Pepsi event featuring their joint commercial shot a year earlier. We’ve known about that visit for a long time from the photos made in Hawaii in early February 1988 by a chance visitor Alan Light, only didn’t know the reason why they were there.

The convention took place during a break between Michael’s rehearsals in Florida and the photos of the visit show Michael together with Jimmy Safechuck and an unknown woman.

The woman is young and is very much at ease in MJ’s company.

I’m not sure that this is Jimmy’s mother as she doesn’t look like a 40-year old, but no matter who she was, what’s notable is that all the pictures show Michael engrossed in a conversation with her, while the boy is just hanging around them looking bored.

And though the author of the photos says that “the boy enjoyed complete attention of MJ” the photos don’t prove it in the least – there isn’t a single one where Michael is even talking to Jimmy.

For some reason Michael’s attention seems to be focused on that woman while Jimmy 1) looks at the pond with his back to them 2) stands waiting while the fans take a picture with Michael and 3) is following the woman and Michael at a distance looking somewhat bored and detached.

At a Pepsi convention in Hawaii, early February 1988

As to who paid for the trip and why it was arranged at all, as far as I know all expenses on journeys made by Michael and his guests for official events like that Pepsi convention were usually covered by Pepsi, so Safechuck’s attempts to involve the MJJ Productions company are fruitless here.

Pepsi invited Michael and Jimmy Safechuck independently of each other – as the two characters of their 1987 commercial – and though Norma Staikos may have arranged the details of the visit the money for the journey was surely coming from Pepsi.

And the boy naturally stayed with his mother in their own separate hotel room.

Paragraph 16 goes into the usual mantra that “MJ wanted the boy to sleep with him, but his mother didn’t allow it”:

16. “During the convention, Plaintiff spent a great deal of time with Decedent and got to know him well, and their friendship deepened. On this trip, Decedent asked if Plaintiff could sleep over in his room, but Plaintiff’s mother did not permit it. This was the first time Decedent asked if Plaintiff could “sleep over” in his room.

I’m sick and tired of having to repeat it, but Michael never invited anyone “to sleep with him”. It was always the other way round – children followed him like ducks and kept nagging with their parents to allow them to stay with Michael. So what Safechuck is claiming here is a blatant lie.

The next paragraph says:

17. While they were in Hawaii, Decedent rented a helicopter to take Plaintiff and his mother on a tour. Plaintiff got airsick 5-10 minutes after take-off, so they had to land. Decedent asked Plaintiff to stay in his room when they got back to the hotel, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. Decedent had also rented out an amusement park for everyone to visit. Plaintiff met Michael J. Fox at the convention, and for the entire time he was treated on a V.I.P. basis.

Though the episode is a trivial one what is standing out in the narration is that Michael allegedly “asked” the boy to stay in his room” but his mother said a firm no.

The reality was much more down-to-earth of course – the boy got sick and Michael offered them his hotel room where he could enjoy more comfort. However his mother evidently didn’t want them to be a nuisance and they kept to their quarters.

Is it so big a thing that it is worth mentioning in a lawsuit?

The next paragraph is interesting though. It says that Michael gave Jimmy a mock interview:

18. The Hawaii trip lasted a weekend. On the return flight to Los Angeles, California, Plaintiff conducted a “mock” interview of Decedent, using his cassette recorder. In that recorded interview, Plaintiff asked Decedent a series of questions, and Decedent provided responses, as follows:

Plaintiff: “What do you think about lying?

Decedent: “People make up stories about [Decedent – referring to himself in the third person]”

Plaintiff: “Do you like performing?”

Decedent: “Favorite things are writing songs, performing, and being with Jimmy [Plaintiff]”

Plaintiff: “Any new plans?”

Decedent: “Smooth Criminal” short film, new Pepsi commercial, best Pepsi commercial was the one with Jimmy [Plaintiff]  because he had ‘heart’, best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy [Plaintiff], love [Plaintiff’s] family and want to spend time with them”.

During that interview, Decedent referred to Plaintiff by the nickname “Rubba”. This was a nickname that Decedent used to refer to Plaintiff early on in their relationship, and one that Decedent used to refer to other children, short for “rubber head”.

What a nice mock interview. Michael was clearly playing up to Jimmy and this means that during that weekend in Hawaii they must have indeed become friends.

His plans are also interesting to us – Michael was going to make a short film involving three children (but not Safechuck).

The Moonwalker gang – Kellie Parker, Brandon Adams, Sean Lennon and MJ

These were Kellie Parker, Sean Lennon and  Brandon Quintin Adams, all of whom have very tender memories of Michael and are deeply resentful of the fictional stories told about him.

Rubba was indeed Michael’s nickname for all children, however it wasn’t anything sinister as haters (and Safechuck) are implying.

Roger Friedman once wrote a special article about it:

Published May 03, 2004

FoxNews.com

Much has been made of some kind of secret club Jackson may have had called the “Rubbaheads,” which had typed rules and regulations.

A note to other Rubbaheads was found in the Jackson family storage bin purchased by a man in New Jersey. There’s an implication that because Jackson called some boys “Rubbas,” it connotes any number of unseemly things.

So I asked one of the boys, now grown, about the alleged Rubbahead Club of 10 years ago, when all this happened. He says when he heard about all this a few weeks ago and again yesterday, he was stymied.

“First of all, there was no Rubbahead Club. Rubba was a name Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster, came up with,” he explained. “Everyone called everyone Rubba. It didn’t mean anything. What we did have was the Applehead Club, and that was from ‘The Three Stooges.’ Everyone was an Applehead because Michael loved ‘The Three Stooges.'”

“It’s nothing sexual,” my source continued. “Michael even called one of the younger kids Baby Rubba. It didn’t mean anything.”

So what about the typed list of rules found in the storage bin? They included requiring members to be “idiots and act crazy at all times”; be vegetarians who fast on Sundays and avoid drugs; watch two episodes of “The Three Stooges” daily; know the Peter Pan story by heart; and when seeing another member, “give the peace sign, and then half of it.”

In fact, insists my source, “there were no rules at Neverland. The whole thing was about not having rules and having a good time. It was all from Peter Pan. There was no club, no initiation, and I never heard of a ‘club kit’ or anything else.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,118795,00.html

Paragraph 19 is about Michael teaching Safechuck dancing in 1988. But the next paragraph is where real mess is beginning to take place.

THE MESS

Paragraph 20 is telling us something extremely strange – it says that “in 1988, Decedent began sleeping over at Plaintiff’s family home”.

How was that possible and when?

20. In 1988, Decedent began sleeping over at Plaintiff’s family home. The first night that Decedent slept over, he stayed in Plaintiff’s bedroom. Decedent ended up sleeping in Plaintiff’s bedroom with him on a regular basis, which Plaintiff’s parents knew. Plaintiff and Decedent would also sometimes pitch a tent in the living room and sleep in there. Plaintiff observed Decedent’s nightly regimen before going to sleep – taping his nose using white bandage tape, to form a shell to cover his nose. Decedent also used the empty bedroom of Plaintiff’s older brother to meditate.

I wonder if Safechuck has checked the packed schedule of Michael’s Bad tour.

A quick recap tells us that after the Hawaii Pepsi convention in early February Michael returned to Florida to continue his rehearsals. On February 23 he started on a tour over American cities.  In May the tour finished in the US but started in Europe with a two-weeks break between the two, and this is when Michael moved into Neverland. On May 23 the European leg of the tour began and lasted until December 1988 when Michael performed in Japan. In January the tour was resumed in the US and this is when it was really over.

So when does Safechuck think Michael had time for sleeping in their family home? Especially “on a regular basis” as he claims in his suit?

Do you believe it? I don’t and think that he is adding this totally unnecessary episode as an extra embellishment to his story which is already crazy as it is. It was clearly inspired by June or Evan Chandler’s accounts of Michael spending time in their homes, but in Safechuck’s case it only backfires against his own tale.

The next paragraph tells us that on March 11 they attended the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, New York.

21. On March 11, 1988, Plaintiff and his mother accompanied Decedent as his guests to attend a performance of The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway, and both before and after the performance they all spent time together with Liza Minnelli. After the show, they all went backstage to meet the stars of the show, including Michael Crawford. Jolie Levine again made all the arrangements through Doe 2 for them to fly to New York and Decedent and/or Doe 2 paid for all of their expenses for the trip. Plaintiff and his mother stayed at the Trump Tower in Manhattan for the weekend. They went to FAO Schwartz, the famous toy story, in addition to attending with him the performance of The Phantom of the Opera. Plaintiff stayed in his mother’s hotel room. Again Decedent asked for Plaintiff to stay in Decedent’s room with him, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. But as soon as Plaintiff woke up in the morning, he would go to the Decedent’s room and stay there with him.

The mantra about “MJ asking Safechuck to stay in his room and his mother said no” should be read in the reverse order of course – Safechuck asked his mother to let him stay with Michael and she allegedly said no to it (again).

It is exceptionally interesting that this point comes immediately after Safechuck’s claim that his parents allowed Michael to stay in their son’s bedroom in their family home and didn’t say a word of objection to it. Can anyone understand anything in the mess Safechuck is creating here?

Paragraph 22 is also absolutely amazing. If you know the dates you will see that Safechuck is blatantly lying here again – he claims that in February he was invited to attend some of Michael’s rehearsals in Florida and he stayed with MJ “for the first time” and his parents didn’t object to it:

22. In or about 1988, Decedent invited Plaintiff to meet him in Pensacola, Florida, where Decedent and his band were rehearsing. Decedent and Does 2 and 3 arranged for Plaintiff and his parents to travel to Florida, and stay in one of the houses that Decedent and Does 2 and 3 had rented there. Plaintiff stayed with Decedent in one house, and Plaintiff’s parents stayed in one of the other houses. This was the first time that Plaintiff stayed with Decedent on a trip. Decedent also took Plaintiff and his parents for a side visit to Disney World.

If you still didn’t get it, let me remind you that only a moment ago, in the previous paragraph he claimed that a month after those rehearsals, on March 11, during the Phantom of the Opera event his mother clearly said NO to her son’s stay in Michael’s room. What an incredibly inconsistent woman Safechuck’s mother seems to be!

However the real thing that is happening here is that Safechuck is working on the impression that the “relationship” evolved from one thing to another, but is doing it without any regard for the real dates. He most probably expected no one to look, but we did, and what we see here is that nothing is fitting in.

At first the parents lure Michael into their family home and allow MJ to stay in one room with their son (see the reflection of Chandler’s story here?). Then they go to Hawaii  in early February where the mother refuses Michael’s offer to take the sick boy to his room. Then they go to Florida rehearsals  in late February and allow the boy to stay in MJ’s house. And then during the Phantom Opera episode on March 11 the boy wants to stay in Michael’s room but his request is refused.

Do you see any logic in this mess?

I don’t.

And the next few paragraphs are making it even more illogical. Paragraph 23 says that the time the boy spent with MJ in 1988 “increased significantly”. Considering that Michael was on a tour at the time it is extremely hard to believe it:

23. The time that Plaintiff and Decedent spent together in 1988 increased significantly. Decedent encouraged Plaintiff to dress like him and grow his hair long like Decedent’s. Decedent had coaxed Plaintiff to become a “miniature version” of Decedent. Plaintiff did. Decedent gave Plaintiff many gifts of his clothing, some of which remain in Plaintiff’s possession to this day. The “Thriller” jacket in which Decedent had famously performed, was given previously to Plaintiff but Decedent later took it back. Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family circle. However, the Decedent never introduced Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s family to his own – Plaintiff saw Jermaine Jackson once at the Hayvenhurst house, and met Janet Jackson once when Plaintiff spent a weekend at Neverland when Janet Jackson and her husband, Renee, were also there.

And all this pathetic talk finally brings us to a climax when Safechuck announces in paragraph 24 that “in the early part of 1988 Decedent invited Plaintiff to join him on the “Bad” tour”:

24. In the early part of 1988 Decedent invited Plaintiff to join him on the “Bad” tour”. Plaintiff spent six (6) months on the “Bad” tour with Decedent, accompanied by his mother. Plaintiff joined Decedent for the second leg of the “Bad” toiur – in June (Europe) and stayed on the tour through December (where it concluded in Japan). During that 6 month period, Plaintiff returned to the US to go back to school for several months. For the Japan portion of the tour, Plaintiff received course and homework from his school in Simi Valley so that he could keep up his studies.

From other Safechuck’s papers we know that he joined Michael on the Bad tour in Paris and this was June 28, 1988.

But now he is adding to that story a detail that he spent with Michael six months out of which “several months” he stayed in the US as he was studying at school.

Did you get it?

He says that he spent six months with Michael from June 28 until the end of the tour in December, however several months out of it he was back home in Simi Valley as he was going to school there.

Though the above is a bigger mess than anything we’ve seen from Safechuck up till now, the real situation was possibly as follows – he and his parents received a 6-months’ visa for the tour over Europe and Japan, and used it from June 28 to the end of his summer holiday when Safechuck returned to school. He then joined Michael only in December, during his Christmas holiday.

Only this explanation can make Safechuck’s mess more or less comprehensible to a reader, though it is absolutely none of our intention to bring any logic into his lies.

But the above means that a loud statement that “he stayed with Michael for 6 months” is totally wrong  – at the very most the stay could last for two (2) months in summer and another couple of weeks in December 1988.

Well, the Cascios travelled for a much longer time with Michael Jackson, so what of it?

Safechuck then proceeds to tell us what he did during the tour and this is where another big surprise is awaiting us. To our amazement we learn that he “performed nightly with Decedent on stage” but “was not paid for his services”!

Does he mean to say that after a couple of lessons from Michael Jackson the MJJ Productions hired him for a dance job?

25. On the tour, Plaintiff performed nightly with Decedent on stage. He was not paid for his services, but Decedent and Doe 2 organized and paid for all hotel and other accommodations; made and paid for all travel arrangements for Plaintiff and his mother (and also for Plaintiff’s father who joined the family for certain portions of the tour); and paid for all food, entertainment and shopping sprees for Plaintiff and his parents. Jolie Levine was the point person for Decedent and [redacted] to make all the arrangements.

26. The first portion of the “Bad” Tour that Plaintiff attended was in Paris, France in approximately June 25-29, 1988. A replica of Decedent’s “Bad” Tour outfit was specially made by Michael Bush for Plaintiff to wear when he performed onstage with Decedent and for publicity events. During the “Bad” Tour, Plaintiff’s parents would go out to see tourist attractions – sometimes alone, and sometimes with other members of Decedent’s entourage and/or other employees of Does 2 and 3. Plaintiff could not go, because if he went out in public, he would be hounded by the paparazzi and fans because of his role on the tour with Decedent. No children participated on the “Bad” Tour other than Plaintiff.

Why “no other children participated on the Bad tour”? The five-year old Wade Robson also participated in one of the shows, however it hasn’t yet occurred to him that his performance could be considered as his employment with MJJ Productions.

As to the rest of Safechuck’s statements the cheek of them is unbelievable – so he “performed with MJ nightly”, but “wasn’t paid” though he “had a special outfit” made for him by no other than Michael Bush and “his role on the tour with Decedent” was so special that he couldn’t leave the hotel.

Isn’t it incredible stuff?

I wonder why all others who travelled with Michael on his tours did not make similar claims – Deepak Chopra’s son, for example, who accompanied Michael on the Dangerous tour at age 17 and who, same as Michael, was also confined to Michael’s hotel room and admitted that eventually he was so bored to share Michael’s forced isolation that he started to go out to night clubs and hang out with Michael’s crew while Michael was sitting all alone in his hotel.

Paragraph 27 of Safechuck’s suit is where his sexual allegations start. It is heavily redacted same as all others which describe the alleged sex abuse. He claims that the “abuse” started right after his arrival in Paris:

27. The first incident of sexual abuse occurred during the Paris portion of the “Bad” Tour in June 25-29, 1988. At the time, Decedent was 29 years old and Plaintiff was 10 years old. Decedent [redacted] Decedent and Plaintiff were together in Decedent’s room at the Hotel de Crillon in Paris. It was dark in the room. Decedent [redacted]. Later on, Decedent told Plaintiff when other sexual acts were involved, it was a way of “showing love”.

Before you even start looking in the above direction I suggest we make a quick recap of the events to check how “intensive” their frienship was during a year prior to that:

– At age 7 Safechuck starts working on TV and two years later makes a joint commercial with Michael Jackson sometime in early 1987.

– For several months after that Michael does not have any communication with the Safechucks.

– Then the nine-year boy sends Michael a letter and on March 10, 1987 he gives him a polite reply. He asks him to “keep writing” and thinks that one day they will probably work together again.

– Then Michael goes away on a tour. Jimmy continues writing letters to him and when Michael comes home during a break he invites the family to a dinner at his home (early November 1987).

– On Thanksgiving Day (November 26) the family calls Michael when he is in Australia and invites him to their home.

– After the end of the first leg of the tour MJ comes to the US and in early December visits the family in Simi Valley.

– At Christmas time there is another visit to Hayvenhurst, when MJ takes Jimmy on a trip to homeless people and hands out money to them.

– In January 1989 the family comes to Hayvenhurst and visits MJ’s recording studio there.

– In early February Pepsi invites both of them to Hawaii to their official convention where the 1987 commercial is shown. Safechuck says he got to know MJ much better during those three days and records an interview with Michael. He and his mother stayed in a separate hotel room in Hawaii.

– Later in February they are invited to attend Michael’s rehearsals in Florida. Safechuck claims that he stayed in MJ’s house and the parents didn’t object to it.

– On March 11 they are invited to see the Phantom of Opera in New York. Safechuck wants to stay in Michael’s room, but his mother doesn’t allow it.

– Safechuck claims that some time in between these events Michael went to their family’s house and stayed in his room, and on a regular basis too. However the timeline does not support this statement.

– On June 28 Safechuck and his family join Michael on the “Bad” tour and it is right at this point that the alleged “abuse” suddenly begins.

And even his strict mother who four months prior to that decidedly said no, suddenly overlooked the problem. And the abuse struck just right out of the blue. Evidently out of some “special” love for Safechuck which none of us noticed in Michael’s behavior towards the boy.

Do you believe it possible?

I don’t. Probably because I know who Michael travelled with prior to Safechuck. This person was Michael’s roadie on the earlier leg of the Bad tour and is a very special kind of a man, and his opinion about Michael is much more valuable and precious than Safechuck’s.

The name of this person is Jimmy Osmond. He is part of a big Mormon family that loves Michael and adheres to an exceptionally strict and clean code of behavior. Mormons don’t drink alcohol, coffee and tea and allow themselves only hot chocolate as a drink. And it is the fundamental principle of their life to tell the truth.

Jimmy Osmond was a virgin until the age of 29 and his wife is the only woman he ever had a relationship with. His ways were very close to MJ’s as Michael’s mother raised him in a very much similar way and this is probably why both of them enjoyed some really “great chats” – they indeed had a lot in common and had much to discuss with each other.

The next post will hopefully be about this other Michael’s companion and the Japan leg of his Bad tour when Jimmy Osmond was accompanying Michael, and after that you will surely understand that what Safechuck is describing now was impossible.

Jolie Levine was mentioned in James Safechuck’s lawsuit as Michael Jackson’s employee at the time he befriended Michael and this is reason enough to find out more about this woman and what she has to say about her former employer.

Michael’s haters value Jolie Levine so much that they made a special video about her, trying to create an impression that she is a supporter of Safechuck’s lies. But after looking into each of their claims I am absolutely not sure that she is. The video is made in the usual haters’ style of mixing half-truths with half-lies and discarding everything that doesn’t fit their pattern, however when you look at the whole story the impression is different.

While researching the subject a lot of small but interesting other details came my way too, so this post will not be only about Jolie Levine but will cover a wider field of truth about some moments in Michael Jackson’s life.

JOLIE LEVINE

First of all, let’s make it clear that Jolie Levine is not Quincy Jones’ daughter. The girl who worked for Michael is of Asian descent and is a different Jolie Levine. She coordinated production of the Bad album in 1987 and was Michael Jackson’s personal assistant for two years.

Jolie Levine in the prime of her career

Rumor has it that she might be the secretary mentioned by an anonymous but knowledgeable insider who once posted a message on the National Enquirer board (see this post for details please) and commented on Michael Jackson’s affairs with women.

The insider said that before June Chandler (what a surprise) Michael was also involved with a groupie/secretary.

The insider was naturally bombarded with questions from curious fans who were dying to know who the secretary was and the insider only added that the secretary was of Asian descent leaving the rest of the job to the fans.

Well, with Jolie Levine the timing, profession and even the Asian descent fit the description, however since this is all we know about her possible affair with MJ we will leave it at that, and proceed to her professional career.

After Michael Jackson Jolie Levine worked in the music industry as a freelancer production coordinator for 30 years and helped a great number of performers to create their albums. Her work experience is indeed impressive and the list of her many projects places the time when she worked for Michael Jackson at the beginning of her career:

.

So what does this woman have to say about Michael Jackson?

The answer depends on who you listen to. Almost all sources are indirect, so what you hear is mostly the interpretation of her words and not what Jolie Levine really said.

The worst of haters’ versions comes from a book called ‘Michael Jackson: Unauthorized’. It was written by a certain Christopher Andersen (not to be confused with Christopher Anderson, founder of the Male survivors website) and is a sort of a bible for Michael’s haters – it is the first source they rush to in case they need a quote to “prove” the dirt they are throwing at Michael.

“UNATHORIZED” HATRED

The book was supposed to be Michael Jackson’s biography and was published in November 1994. Just two months prior to that a year-long investigation of the Chandler case had been closed without bringing any charges against Jackson.

Considering its content and time of release the book seems to be a retaliatory blow to Michael for the prosecution being unable to do away with their enemy and for so long a time too. Its obvious goal was to show to the public that the two grand juries who looked into the “evidence” contained in the book must have been complete imbeciles if they looked and looked at this sea of mud but still found nothing to indict Michael for.

Christopher Andersen

Indeed,  Christopher Andersen collected every drop of filth ever told about MJ and presented it in a concentrated form.

The result was a book “hating Michael with a passion” as was noted by one of its readers.

What’s especially interesting is that besides everything gossip and tabloids could offer at the time, the book also included observations about Michael “relieving himself in his pants” and “molesting Bubbles”, which immediately gave away Victor Gutierrez as the author’s inspiration – the only good thing about Gutierrez is that his style is easily recognizable in everything he puts his hand to.

And this means that Christopher Andersen was also making use of VG’s “findings”, either directly or via Diane Dimond who was their primary collector, only he did it two years before Gutierrez released a book of his own (in 1996).

So what you hear from Gutierrez you also read in Christopher Andersen’s book, with the big difference though that Gutierrez has the reputation of a liar and a “sleazebag”, and is suspected of being a pedophile himself, while Christopher Anderson is a journalist of some repute who worked for the Time and People Magazine.

Disreputable lies retold in a more reputable source is actually a very effective means of their promotion. This method took Gutierrez’s tales to a new level and now allows Michael’s haters to repeat them without having to disclose the shameful source they originally came from.

Readers were very much impressed by Andersen’s writings (the quotes are from the Amazon site):

• The made up stuff is some of the craziest I have ever read… Michael relieves himself in his pants… and then someone is quoted saying he may have molested bubbles?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME.. Dont waste your money on this book…
• He obviously hates MJ with such passion, I could feel it in the way the book was written. Completely Filthy!
• The author’s attitude is: No matter what MJ do, he writes something bad. I hope this is out of the personal hatred of the author rather than pleasing the mood of general readers in US at that time. If MJ did not cry when he presented a gift to the sick, he was heartless. If MJ stayed in his limo parked near the grave of his grandmother, MJ is said to want to enjoy A/C instead of joining the funeral.  His implication that MJ’s using of others’ melody for his songs is also a serious one. Garbage!

A note on the stealing-the-melody issue – the woman called Crystal Cartier sued Michael Jackson for ALL profits from his Dangerous album (22 million pounds) accusing him of using her melody for the Dangerous song.

Michael was deposed and sang a bit of it in court explaining how he composed his music and thus turning it into a separate hit.  MJ was producing melodies in a fountain and never heard Crystal Cartier’s version before he recorded his. “Never in my life. I’m more than positive. It’s the honest truth”, Michael testified.

The case was thrown out of court but to the author of “Unauthorized” it doesn’t matter, of course.

Readers continue with Andersen’t book:

• No valid sources at all, its all lies. The pictures are good but he tries to turn them into something they aren’t. ALSO, he took the smooth criminal music video and the Thriller music video and tried to convince the readers that Michael Jackson has an obsession with “The mafia and the occult”. I mean what the –c-?! He also tries to convince you that Michael Jackson was the cause of Benny Hills death, but gives no explanation at all!!! I am utterly disgusted at the perversion that this man sustains. Some of the “sources” that are the people he asked ARENT EVEN REAL PEOPLE. Don’t waste your time effort or money on this world’s longest tabloid article. It’s garbage, and so is the author that wrote this.

Sorry for the interruption again, but the Benny Hill story needs a comment too. Some screenshots from London newspapers saved for us by the Michael Jackson Archives show that Michael and Brett Barnes indeed visited Benny Hill in hospital in February 1992 where Benny was recovering from a heart attack, only the outcome of the visit was exactly the opposite of the one described by Andersen.

Michael brought Benny Hill flowers, embraced him and said: “Great to see you at long last”. He asked him about the way he made his comedy sketches and was so “mesmerized” by Benny that he kept repeating to him “You’re my hero”.

Michael wondered if he would be in a video with him (Benny agreed) and invited Benny to stay with him in Neverland next time he came to Los Angeles. Michael also told him that he watched his shows every day and had hundreds of his videos. And he asked for Benny’s photos which would have pride of place in his home.

When Michael left Benny said that Michael was “one of the most genuine people you could wish to meet”. His  friend revealed: “Benny is much happier now. He’s had a great night’s sleep and is back to his joker self. Michael’s visit was the tonic he needed”.

Benny Hill’s angel. “Michael’s visit was the tonic he needed”

One of the articles called Michael “Benny’s Angel”. This angel came right at the time when Benny Hill needed him most – his program on TV had been axed and this is when he really began to die, as his friends said.

Two months later, in April 1992 Benny Hill died of kidney failure, however his last days were surely much brighter due to Michael’s visit and his genuine appreciation of Benny Hill’s talent.

So Michael surely wasn’t “the cause of his death” as Andersen claims it – in fact he helped Benny to live a few more happy days or probably weeks.

Isn’t it amazing that we and Andersen use the same sources, but come to opposite conclusions? Oh my God, and what if Andersen always turns facts into their opposite?

Readers of Andersen’s book continue with their comments on the author’s views about MJ:

• In between all this drama, he’s got his hands down (or over – depending on the price) some kid’s pants with nary a care if DeBarge (Janet’s drunken, drug addled husband), his momma, LaToya (now there’s a reliable source), or any of the maids, butlers, bodyguards, drivers, secretaries, managers, business partners saw him. So besides all of the above, he was apparently an exhibitionist, too. It’s a wonder Michael feeling up some kid wasn’t broadcast on the 6 o’clock news every night. 
• If half of this stuff was true, then Michael hired a bunch of amoral sub-humans to work at Neverland and they should have all been rounded up en mass and tried and convicted in a court of law for aiding and abetting crimes against children. Whoever they told these stories to should have been dialing 911 instead of paying them cash.

All reviews were helpful but the last one was especially to the point – indeed, if half of Andersen’s stuff were true all those amoral sub-humans around Michael Jackson should have been tried and convicted in a court of law for aiding and abetting crimes against children instead of being rewarded for it by cash and attention.

Or is it probably not too late to do it now?

“UNAUTHORIZED” ABOUT JOLIE LEVINE

Finally here is a piece from Andersen about Jolie Levine:

“Jolie Levine had been in the record business for seven years first as an executive at Quest Records, then as a production co-ordinator on the ‘Bad’ album when Michael hired her to be his secretary in mid-1987. For the next two years Levine kept track of his schedule and his appointments, took his phone calls, served as his liaison with accountants, lawyers, managers in short, all the duties of any executive secretary.

Levine was also called upon to run personal errands for Michael to buy him clothes, household items, and, frequently, gifts for his friends. Levine would later recall picking out a present for Elizabeth Taylor, but far more often she was dispatched by Michael to buy toys for the young boys he had befriended. A card was always attached, and no matter whom the gift was for, it was addressed to “Rubba”.

Every two weeks or so, Michael himself would take his special friend on shopping sprees. Typically, they would arrange a visit to Toys ‘R’ Us or other toy shops after hours, then run up and down the aisles, picking out toys and games at whim. The tab during one such outing exceeded $25,000.

As his private secretary, Levine had accompanied Michael on most of the Bad tour. Whatever city they were in around the world, Levine says, she would walk into Michael’s hotel room and find her boss in bed with his young friend. There was always a second bed in the room, and it was, according to Levine and other witnesses, never slept in. When she saw Michael at the end of the day, her pyjama-clad employer would be back in bed in his hotel room again with his young companion.

At Neverland Levine was not surprised to see Michael continue the pattern with a constant stream of special friends. Away from the ranch, Michael’s then-private secretary referred to him as a “chicken hawk” slang for paedophile.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.music.michael-jackson/-5K_MP4DMeE:

Let us not handle the regular haters’ mantras about gifts for “special” friends and the name of Rubba which meant nothing and focus on serious allegations instead. And let us even assume that Jolie Levine really said all of the above. So what will her words convey to us once you brush aside the haters’ innuendoes?

Look at the statement about her walking into Michael’s hotel room and always “finding her boss in bed with his young friend”, for example.

If Jolie Levine could so easily observe the scene in “whatever city they were in” it means that either the door was not locked or Michael freely opened it to everyone knowing that he had nothing to hide. On the other hand, if Michael opened the door he couldn’t be in the bed, could he? So this leaves us with the only option that the door was open and anyone of his entourage could enter it at any time. Indeed, Michael must have been an exhibitionist – contrary to everything we’ve ever heard about him.

In short, it is utterly ridiculous even to discuss it. Those who take these stories seriously must be pretending that they don’t know the way of life Michael had when he was on a tour. He was always confined to his hotel room and when his assistant entered he was most probably always sitting on the bed watching TV – alone or with his travel companion.

All of us know that his ventures into the outside world were nothing short of a catastrophe. That 1992 trip to London (when he visited Benny Hill) also had an episode when the crowd knocked Michael to the ground and he pleaded to be left alone “with a look of terror on his face” as the papers said, before his minders ushered him and Brett Barnes to “the sanctuary of the Dorchester [hotel]”.

Michael was mobbed and knocked to the ground when he was in London in 1992

The hotel was a sanctuary of course, but it was also a place of Michael’s confinement as he had to stay in his room for all hours of the day except the time of his performances.

And while he was there in complete isolation or in the company of a friend, he was mostly watching TV or playing video games – naturally from the bed as the best vantage point in every hotel room.

These hotel habits were acquired by Michael in early childhood and evidently stayed with him forever, because when he was at home the routine was also the same – all those present would also hang out in his room in Neverland and group together on the bed watching TV from there and sometimes dropping off asleep as Macaulay Culkin described it.

This is the only life-style Michael Jackson knew and who can blame him for never having a chance for knowing anything different?

THE PYJAMA/PAJAMA ISSUE

And what’s so wrong about Jolie Levine entering her employer’s room and seeing him “pyjama-clad” there? It was nothing extraordinary for Michael – he was always pyjama-clad when he was staying in his hotel rooms.

See, for example, the way he was dressed in a Buenos Aires hotel when Michael was on the Dangerous tour (1993) and was hanging out with the Cascio brothers:

Michael Jackson with the Cascio brothers in Buenos Aires (1993)

These photos are my favourites.

The pyjama-clad Michael is crawling out into the balcony with two boys around him playing with paper aeroplanes – oh, the scene has indeed all the makings of another media “freak” story about MJ.

However what it really tells us is how terribly unfree Michael was and how little we know of his isolated and forced lifestyle.

Imagine yourself not being able to come out into the balcony and having to crawl there so that paparazzi don’t see you.

And all of it still being in vain as they are taking pictures of you anyway – from the building opposite the hotel room (or otherwise we wouldn’t be looking at these photos now).

As to pyjama it was indeed Michael’s favourite home wear. It was so habitual for him that he sometimes even rehearsed in this attire as his “This is it” footage showed it.

And the pyjama episode in court also happened only due to the fact that Michael was wearing his home clothes when he was taken to hospital but had to be quickly rushed to the courtroom and had no opportunity to change – if he was 5 minutes late the judge was going to send him to jail.

Actually the things we have to discuss here are so small and petty that they wouldn’t be even worthy of attention if it were not for haters’ constant insinuations about everything Michael ever did and said.

Even if we consider the pyjama matter closed haters will still not let us go and will demand an answer why Michael travelled with teenagers only. After all Jolie Levine saw no other but Jimmy Safechuck in Michael’s room, so why did Michael “prefer” a boy and didn’t choose someone of his own age as his travel companion?

And who said that he didn’t? Michael often had older people as his companions on the tour, only no one is telling us about it as it doesn’t fit their story.

I myself learned about it quite by chance.

MICHAEL’S TRAVEL COMPANIONS

Prior to Safechuck, for example, Michael travelled with the grown-up Jimmy Osmond.  The photo of young Jimmy Osmond was published in the papers covering Michael’s Japan/Australia leg of the Bad tour and accompanying it was a note that Jimmy Osmond was Michael Jackson’s “new pal”.

Osmond was actually working as Michael’s agent on the tour but the papers implied something different of course. To make their stories about “boys” consistent with their understanding of Jackson they even reduced Osmond’s age by five years and said that he was nineteen though according to my calculations he was already twenty four in 1987  (Jimmy Osmond was born in 1963). Michael was just five years older than him.

It is also interesting to note that though Jimmy Osmond accompanied Michael for several months during the Bad tour Jolie Levine is quoted speaking only about Safechuck and never saying a word about Michael’s earlier travel companion on the same tour.

New pal. “Michael flew in [to Japan] with his new friend Jimmy Osmond, now 19, the youngest of the Mormon singing clan”

The same was done with Deepak Chopra’s son Gotham who travelled with Michael on the Dangerous tour in 1992. Chopra was seventeen at the time, however some media shamelessly reported that he was thirteen:

“His son Gotham Chopra had traveled at the age of 13 with Jackson as a roadie on his Dangerous tour.”

Gotham Chopra said about it:

“When I was about 17, Michael invited me on the road with him – he was heading out to Europe on the biggest rock concert at the time (Dangerous tour) and wanted company. People would ask me if I had endured anything strange or awkward with him. I’d answer truthfully that in all of my years with him, in every single moment, Michael was nothing but dignified and appropriate, never once doing anything that would be deemed scandalous with me. It was really that simple.” 

http://intentblog.com/writing-songs-my-friend-mike/

It seems that for the media all boys travelling with Jackson have to be “thirteen” as otherwise the lie they are building around Michael will be falling apart.

And no matter who Michael travelled with his behaviour was always impeccable – with Gotham Chopra,  Jimmy Osmond, Brett Barnes, the Cascio brothers and Safechuck who is actually the only one out of these people who is now telling horrible tales about his old friend.

For those confused about MJ’s companions here is short memo on who travelled when with Michael Jackson (the list will be supplemented if we learn more):

• On the first leg of Bad tour in Japan and Australia (autumn 1987) Michael travelled with James Osmond. On the second leg of the tour he travelled with  Jimmy Safechuck and his parents (in summer of 1988 and then at Christmas time with several months back to school in between). Jolie Levine must have worked for Michael on both legs of the tour, but Christopher Andersen’s glorius book quotes her solely on Safechuck.

• Four years later, on the first leg of the Dangerous tour Michael Jackson travelled with Gotham Chopra (in summer of 1992) , and in autumn the same year with Brett Barnes and his family. On the second leg of the Dangerous tour (in autumn 1993 when the Chandler scandal was in full swing) Michael was accompanied by the Cascio brothers whose presence helped him to survive through those horrible times.

None of these other people who travelled with Michael ever said a bad word about him, however haters remember only Safechuck. Is it what they call the whole truth?

Now that we know that Michael had travel companions of all ages haters will grab us by our lapels again and demand why Michael invited teenagers on his tours at all (not always, but at least on some occasions). Wasn’t it more suitable for him to have a companion of approximately the same age rather than a teenage boy?

WHY TEENAGE BOYS AT ALL?

It seems that the answer to the question is provided by Gotham Chopra. Initially he was absolutely thrilled by a chance of travelling together with Michael, but soon enough he got bored and even claustrophobic sitting with him in a hotel room day after day.

Seventeen-year olds want to see the world and seek adventures and entertainment, and this is what happened to Gotham Chopra at some point – he began to grow envious of Michael’s crew who were free to go wherever and whenever they wanted to and spend their time at night clubs bragging about their escapades the next day.

You won’t believe it but Gotham Chopra was actually so tired of the simple pleasures of TV and videos Michael himself was confined to that he even offered himsef to do some work on the tour.

Michael didn’t object to his travel companion running away from him and was an avid listener to the stories of his adventures, however the end result of Gotham Chopra’s flight was that while all of them were thoroughly enjoying themselves he had to stay in his room all alone.

Children are a different kind in this respect.

Michael Jackson in Buenos Aires with the Frank and Eddie Cascio on the Dangerous tour

They don’t go to night clubs and are perfectly okay with watching movies, playing video games or engaging in pillow fights all day long.

They are not even that much interested in sight-seeing and certainly won’t choose work over flying paper aeroplanes from the balcony.

They also prefer to hang out and have fun throwing pillows to the crowd.

And since Michael was a big kid himself and their lifestyles coincided so much, children surely made a better company for him than the bored adults.

When you read Gotham Chopra’s description of Michael’s usual tour routine try to imagine yourselves in his shoes (seriously) and only then decide whether you as an adult would choose to live the way Michael had to live for months:

“During the show itself, sometimes I’d hang around just off the stage watching Michael kill it. The man knew how to perform and it was like a meditation to just to witness it. At other times, I’d hang in his dressing room, outfitted to the nines with candy, orange juice, and video games.

After the show, Michael would retreat back to the dressing room too and then be forced to stand around awkwardly and greet VIPs, celebrity guests, sponsors and others who’d earned backstage privileges. It was easy to see that he was far more comfortable singing and dancing in front of a 100,000 strong than socializing with a dozen.

After those formalities, he and I would retreat back to his hotel, usually the biggest and best suite in the whole city. Michael almost always had the place stocked with old movies, more candy, and more orange juice. Even as thousands of adoring fans chanted his name from the streets below, we’d chat about music, movies, video games, girls, and occasionally the meaning of life.

But then something unexpected happened. The awesomeness wore off for me. Believe it or not, I started to get bored of sitting up in that suite with just MJ. And then I started to feel claustrophobic. I was seventeen years old, in freaking Europe, surrounded by a rock band, sexy dancers who could bend in all sorts of ways and backup singers who hit octaves I fantasized about. They liked to rage every night after the show and openly talked about their exploits the following day. Soon enough, I gained the courage to ask Michael if he minded if I slipped out with some of the others after his shows.

Not only did he say it was okay, he encouraged me. Outfitted with his fedora, sunglasses, and tour jackets, getting the best table at the best restaurants, into the VIP sections of the hottest clubs, and the adulation of all the local girls was easier than could be imagined. Often when I got back from a night on the town, Michael would call me in my hotel room and summon me. I’d head up to his suite and proceed to narrate my night’s misadventures to him and debrief him on all the latest gossip surrounding his band. I didn’t really need to dramatize my exploits, but I did anyway because I knew that he was living vicariously through me and I was happy for it.

For years, I wore the badge of that summer and my many exploits over it boldly and boastfully. Then of course, as time passed and Michael became embroiled in scandals involving teen boys, all of a sudden my summer as his teen sidekick didn’t have the same glamour to it. Now it was a stigma, something I treasured but certainly did not tout.

http://intentblog.com/remembering-my-friend-michael-jackson/

The above provides a lot of food for thought, but what struck me most is that people got restless, bored and even ill if they tasted just a bit of Michael Jackson’s life. And I don’t even know who of Michael’s adult friends would agree to drop everything and share his hotel confinement for several months in a row.

In another interview Gotham Chopra said that though the public was having a great time Michael had to live in a bubble and suffered from incredible and extreme isolation:

GOTHAM CHOPRA: On one hand as a 17-year-old kid, being with Michael Jackson on this rock tour, it was amazing, but gradually as time went by, I started to realize that, you know, all these millions of people and these hundreds of people on the tour, they`re having a great time, but he is in a bubble. He`s extremely isolated after the shows in front of hundreds of thousands of people.

He would retreat up to his penthouse hotel, and he would essentially be by himself, watching movies, drinking orange juice. There would be people, literally, hundreds of people downstairs, chanting his name all night. He would occasionally sort of stick his hand out or peek outside and wave at them. They would go crazy, but that was his existence. It was incredibly isolating.

PINSKY: And you were up there some of the time with him watching movies, hanging out?

CHOPRA: At first I was, because he had asked me to there, and it was cool to have that sort of access. Gradually, it was kind of boring, to be honest.

PINSKY: Yes.

CHOPRA: And so, I asked out of that. I started working on the tour and hanging more with the dancers and the band and all of that.

PINSKY: So, you`re 17. How old was Michael?

CHOPRA: I think he was in his early 30s at that time.

PINSKY: Did that seem peculiar to you that a 30-year-old wanted to hang out with a 17-year-old?

CHOPRA: You know, not on the face of it. And I mean, I had — you know, not the way I knew Michael which is while he may have been 30s, I related to him, he related to me. We talked about the same things. We talked about sports. We talked about movies. We talked about women, those sorts of things, and it just seemed sort of normal. My parents were comfortable with it, and so, I never had any reason to question it. And by the way, it was well before all of the scandals and all of that. <> In my presence, I mean, he was impeccable with his behavior, and thats all I have to really go by.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/17/ddhln.01.html

“Impeccable behaviour”, “chatting about women”, “extreme isolation after the shows”, “living vicariously through others”, “talking about the meaning of life” – how different is all of it from anything we hear about MJ from the media and his haters! I sometimes wonder if they know at all the unique human being they are trying to so horribly describe.

You will agree that all above innuendoes were sheer nonsense which under normal circumstances would not have required any attention at all. However Jolie Levine’s story contains one episode which is supposed to be a killer and is meant to totally demoralize anyone who speaks in support of Michael Jackson. In Christopher Andersen’s interpretation the episode is as follows:

 “Away from the ranch, Michael’s then-private secretary referred to him as a “chicken hawk” slang for paedophile.”

Oh, that was indeed a strong statement. Did Jolie Levine really say it?

DID SHE SAY IT?

If we are to believe a LA Times article the word “chicken hawk” was indeed pronounced by Jolie Levine. However stopping at that would be telling half the truth only.

Firstly, Andersen is trying to create the impression that Michael’s secretary always called Michael that way while in reality Jolie Levine pronounced the word just once. And secondly, she later disavowed it and explained how it happened.

The LA Times article mentioning this episode was published on January 11, 1994 and was actually devoted to Larry Feldman who submitted to court the new Chandler’s declaration and some excerpts from depositions including Jolie Levine’s (this was done for publicity sake though officially it was in support of his motion to seek Michael’s financial records).

In her deposition Levine said that she used that word when the police were interviewing her and explained that she was caught off guard, angry and surprised. And though she used the word she didn’t really mean it.

Please also note that according to Michael Jackson’s defense the papers filed by Larry Feldman misrepresented the sworn statements, so what Jolie Levine really said and it was situation it happened remains unknown to us.

The article said:

Lawyer Seeks Jackson Financial Records : Investigation: Attorney for the boy allegedly molested by the singer files partial transcripts of depositions telling of bedroom activity and photos. Jackson’s counsel says the papers misrepresent sworn statements.

January 11, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER

…Among other edited depositions filed Monday in connection with the lawsuit is one taken from Jolie Levine, who worked as Jackson’s secretary for two years starting in 1987. Levine told the lawyers that she called Jackson a “chicken hawk,” a slang term for a pedophile, when police interviewed her about the allegations against her former boss.

“And when you told that to the detectives or the police, you meant by that that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, correct?” asked Robert Turner, an associate of Feldman who also is representing the boy.

“I was caught off guard, angry, surprised,” Levine said. “I didn’t really mean saying that.”

Full story: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-11/local/me-10709_1_michael-jackson

Michael’s haters are laughing at Jolie Levine’s explanations, but in their place I wouldn’t be so quick in disregarding them – especially considering Safechuck’s current story that the employees of Michael Jackson’s companies “knew of the abuse”.

First ask yourself in what situation you would be “caught off guard, angry and surprised”. The answer is:

• You would be caught off guard if you faced something totally unexpected and new to you, something you never knew or thought of before.
• You would be surprised if you didn’t believe what you were told.
• You would be angry if you were accused of turning a blind eye on what happened and were considered an enabler in these activities. And you would be even angrier with your employer because it is due to him that you got into so unpleasant a situation and at the beginning of your career in the industry too.
• And please note that we know absolutely nothing about the context of Jolie Levine’s words. The defense lawyers did say that Larry Feldman misrepresented the sworn statements, so for all we know the context of her statement could be even as follows: “If he turns out to be a chicken hawk, it has nothing to do with me. I had no clue”.  And you will agree that if she said it that way the same word would acquire a totally different colouring.

Was all of it possible? Absolutely.

But even no matter what Jolie Levine initially said (and disavowed later) and in what context it happened the crucial point in the story is that she reacted to police questions with surprise.

The surprise is very important here as it is overturning everything Christopher Andersen and other MJ haters previously said about her.

The surprise means that Jolie Levine found nothing extraordinary about Michael’s behaviour when she entered his room and saw whatever she had to see there. The surprise means that she did not think a single bad thought about Michael  and this is why the police accusations took her so much off her guard. The surprise means that Jolie Levine never noticed anything suspicious and therefore could not know of the “abuse” Safechuck is now claiming in his lawsuit.

Safechuck and Robson can say whatever they like about everyone in MJ’s company “knowing” of their alleged abuse, however Jolie Levine’s reaction shows that the allegations were a complete shock to her.

So even a woman who had a close and daily contact with Michael never saw anything which Christopher Andersen and other haters (who were never there) are so gloriously describing.

(to be continued)

FOREVER YOUNG

August 29th is Michael Jackson’s birthday and today he could have turned fifty seven. Already fifty seven!

What a strange feeling it is – all of us are getting older and he remains young. Though we would have very much preferred it to be different and him staying along and aging together with all the rest of us.

Imagine him being fifty seven and what a thrill it could have been. He would have still been very thin but strong and tough – of course only in case he was spared by the media and was able to sleep. Sleep and leaving him alone was all he needed to make him happy and enjoy the comfort of his private life.

If they hadn’t run him into the ground he would have devoted his life to his kids and would have surely involved himself in more affairs with women. And he would have probably even married again and had more children. And how much fantastic music he could have created! And there would have surely been no cases like Robson and Safechuck – they would have simply not dared to lie looking him in the eye.

But none of it will ever happen. Michael gave us his very best and burned across the sky as if a comet. And here we are – lost, bewildered and still not understanding why so big an injustice could take place. And why there seems to be no end to it considering the tons of mud thrown at him by those who contributed to his death and the lies of his haters who are now doubling their efforts to portray him the person he never was.

And what seems to be especially wrong is that the public still doesn’t know the true Michael and is still feeding on misconceptions about him.

First the media ridiculed him for everything he did and didn’t do progressing from a mere “eccentric” to “weird” and then to an outrageous “freak”, and never apologized for it and pretended that it was nothing much, and now on top of the old lies they are piling up new ones – with the help of someone who is hoping to profit from the success of Michael’s estate and turn his money into an endless source of their income.

And with every new wave of hatred towards MJ his real self is getting dimmer and dimmer and turns into a flicker that risks to completely fade away and never to be known to people at all.

Guys, this won’t do. It is simply a must to restore the truth about Michael Jackson and the real man he was.

‘UNIMPORTANT’ DETAIL 

A recent occurrence that took place in the comments section to this post about Jimmy Safechuck’s allegations where we discussed with Alan Light (who made photos of MJ and Safechuck in Hawaii) the reason why they were there at all, showed to me once again that there is simply no such thing as an “unimportant detail” in establishing the truth about Michael Jackson.

Every detail matters. One small omission of fact and a false assumption arising from it can take us in the wrong direction and make even Michael’s supporters jump to wrong conclusions about him. With an omission here and there his detractors don’t even need to tell many lies about Michael – it is just enough to drop a hint, and people’s own imagination will do the rest of the job.

In the Hawaii case the false assumption made even by Michael’s supporters was that it was Michael Jackson who took Jimmy Safechuck on a short trip to Hawaii in February 1988 where MJ, the boy and his mother stayed together at the Kamala Hilton hotel (in separate rooms though).

However the truth of the matter is that it wasn’t Michael Jackson who took Jimmy Safechuck there – both of them were invited there by Pepsi who naturally covered all the expenses on the visit too.

Pepsi was holding a convention in Hawaii that featured a commercial where MJ and Safechuck had taken part in a year earlier, so it was a sort of a business trip for each of them.

In this new context all Safechuck’s talk that he was invited there by Michael and he covered the Safechucks’ travel and accommodation expenses turns into a flat lie. It was an official visit organized by Pepsi, so it was naturally not Michael who paid for the Safechucks’ visit.

The most Michael could do was reminding Pepsi not forget to invite the other co-star of the commercial or passing on their invitation to the family, but as regards the expenses since Michael didn’t pay for his own visit to their convention, there was absolutely no reason why he should pay for their other two guests.

In the context of this discovery Safechuck’s statements in his lawsuit that he was taken by “a limousine to the hotel” and “enjoyed a V.I.P. treatment throughout the visit” no longer produce the impression they were intended for.  Michael could offer Safechuck and his mother to pick them from the airport by his limousine so that the organizers didn’t have to arrange for them a separate car, but it conveys to us nothing but the fact that despite all his fame Michael was a very polite and considerate young gentleman.

If you read the respective point of Safechuck’s lawsuit you will see how well structured and sly his lie is – it starts with an age difference between the boy and MJ (as if it matters) and ends with the limousine and VIP treatment all of which is meant to produce the impression that Safechuck was Michael’s  “special friend”,  though there was nothing special about him and his visit there, and it was nothing but a usual business trip.

In 1988, when Plaintiff was 10 years old and Decedent was 29-30 years old, Decedent invited Plaintiff to a convention in Hawaii at which the Pepsi commercial they had both appeared in was being featured. The Plaintiff attended the Pepsi convention with Decedent and appeared with him on stage. Decedent and/or Does 2 and 3 made all the arrangements and paid all the expenses for Plaintiff and his mother to fly first class to Hawaii, travel by limousine to the Kahala Hilton Hotel and for all of their accommodations and expenses during the convention. Plaintiff and his mother travelled together with Decedent’s entourage. Plaintiff stayed with his mother in her hotel room on that trip. 

See how easy a business trip organized by others and Michael’s politeness turned into a point in a lawsuit which treats the rest of the story in the same way and twists even the most trivial matters into something sinister?

ALAN LIGHT ABOUT HIS CHANCE ENCOUNTERS WITH MJ

Alan Light who was at the Kamala Hilton hotel with his two friends and made pictures of MJ, Jimmy Safechuck and the woman who was not identified at that moment, described the seven times he met Michael within so short period of time (his full comments are provided in the post about Safechuck):

“Hi, my name is Alan Light and I took the many photos of Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck at the Kahala Hilton Hotel in early February, 1988, that are posted in my flickr account.

Michael and the boy I later learned was Jimmy were staying at the same hotel I was, and I saw them together all around the hotel 7 different times over 3 days. It was funny because, for a supposed recluse, every time my friends and I turned around there he was again. They were inseparable around the hotel – running after each other, playing tag, making soap bubbles on a room’s balcony, walking closely together on the hotel’s small private beach, looking at the hotel’s dolphins, turtles and penguins together. Another time I saw them together in the hotel lobby.

Photo and comment by Alan Light

The still-unidentified woman in white was with Michael & Jimmy on 2 of those 7 different occasions I saw them – once on the balcony when they were making soap bubbles, and the other time out during the daytime around the pool area talking to fans who had spotted Michael, where you say Jimmy looks bored.

Jimmy may look bored in those daytime photos but at no other time in the trip did he look bored with Michael when I saw them together.

I think Jimmy just knew to back off when Michael was spotted by fans, because that’s how he behaved when I first spotted Michael and asked for a photo with him.

When I asked Michael if he would pose for a picture with me he agreed, but said we should move farther away from the hotel so as not to attract attention.

As Michael and I stood side by side ready to take the picture it occurred to me that it would be polite to ask Michael’s young friend to join us. I didn’t want the boy to feel left out, shoved aside by a fan only interested in the star. The boy seemed happy to be invited to join us the photo. I only found out Jimmy’s name later, and that he was the boy appearing in a Pepsi TV commercial with Michael at the time.”

Alan Light with MJ and Jimmy Safechuck in Hawaii 1988 (photo by Alan Light)

Well, now we know why Safechuck looks so terribly happy around Michael and why he is even embracing him in this picture. Each time fans were taking pictures of Michael he had to stand aside, but this time he was allowed to join him and he ran in with a look of happiness on his face.

So the scene we are witnessing here was actually not a routine one –  on the contrary, it was an exception to the rule though Michael’s haters will naturally tell you something different.

Alan Light continues:

“Michael was extremely sweet and nice to us, and we talked to him for about 15 minutes. He asked us where we were from and told us he was going to be touring in Europe later in the year. When I saw him and asked for this picture he said “They’d be mad if they knew I was out here” which I assumed meant he had sneaked out of the hotel away from his security and that they would be upset if they knew he had ventured out alone. But there was nobody out around the pool and animal area but he and Jimmy, myself and my friend’s Jack and Don. Just the 5 of us, so he was in no danger of getting mobbed. Still, he didn’t want to attract attention.

Later as we were talking a young girl and her parents wandered by, they saw Michael and got his autograph and their own photo with him. All I know is that they were the Butler family and from England.

I never personally saw any suspicious behavior between them, just a lot of playfulness. Michael was acting more like someone Jimmy’s age, 10, than a 29 1/2 year old man. They obviously connected on a childlike playful level.”

When our Susannerb wondered if Alan could bring together the thoughts he had at the time about the boy and the allegations now in his court documents, he said:

“I wish I could tie what I saw to the persistent allegations, but just seeing them in public together several times over a period of three days unfortunately doesn’t give me any special insight into what may have happened when they were behind closed doors, or what ulterior motives Michael may have had in mind regarding Jimmy. As I said in my original comment, I never personally saw any suspicious behavior between them.

I wish I had more to say about the allegations but really all I can say is what I saw, which was nothing suspicious or inappropriate, and that Michael Jackson was extremely nice to me and my friends. It was so surreal seeing this supposed recluse superstar seven different times during three days around the hotel. My friends and I got so used to it we’d just say “Well, there he is again.” When I had my camera with me I took pictures; other times I didn’t have my camera with me.”

Of course it was surreal to see the supposed recluse superstar seven times during those three days, because this notion is another of those misconceptions imposed on us by the ugly media – Michael was not that much of a recluse and liked very much to mix with ordinary people, only he had little chance to do so as on all other occasions except those three days in Hawaii he was mobbed.

And sorry for having to correct Alan Light here, but for this particular case he doesn’t need any special insight about “what happened when they were behind closed door”. It is Safechuck himself who says that nothing happened behind closed doors and even his lawsuit says that he simply came to know Michael Jackson much better during those three days.

The news that Michael was in Hawaii at a Pepsi convention was reported by a local newspaper and this is how Alan Light and his friends knew the reason why he was there, however the fact that the boy was another of Pepsi’s guests evidently escaped them (and the media). Alan is writing:

“The fact that I knew Michael was in Hawaii to make an appearance at a Pepsi bottlers convention was printed in this local newspaper article (in my hometown newspaper) at the time, from February 14, 1988. The writer says that Michael told me he was there for Pepsi, but I think that is the writer’s inaccurate conclusion. I don’t recall Michael telling me that, I remember reading in the Hawaii newspaper about the Pepsi convention and put two and two together – or perhaps the Hawaii newspaper article mentioned Michael made an appearance. 27 years later, my memory isn’t perfect on small details.

Here is the article about meeting Michael that was written up in my local Moline, Illinois newspaper on February 14, 1988. I put this article on flickr at the same time I put the MJ photos on flickr long ago:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alan-light/2212371350/sizes/o/

You’re right that my original captions to the MJ photos did not say why he was in Hawaii, and I regret that lack of detail in my first hastily-written captions led some people to believe that Michael just took Jimmy there for a sort of personal vacation. So I added the information about the Pepsi convention a little while back.”

THE MEDIA COVERAGE

The article Alan Light is referring to is very interesting.

The article was published on February 14, 1988

On the one hand it is a typical media product which starts with a standard enumeration of every rumor about MJ that existed at that moment but had nothing to do with the trip to Hawaii. The list included every so-called “eccentricity” of Michael Jackson which (even if true) look so innocent today that it is even funny.

In addition to that a couple of things were also made up – the author, for example, claimed that Michael wanted to add the bones of the deformed John Merrick to his “collection of deformed skeletons”.

First of all, Michael didn’t have a collection of deformed skeletons, and second, even if it had been true, how on earth did the reporter know the reason why Michael allegedly wanted to buy the bones of a disfigured man? What if he simply felt sorry for the fate of the poor human exhibit who had to show his deformities to earn his living and wanted to have him buried as any human being deserves it?

But fortunately, in addition to the standard (obligatory?) part of every Michael Jackson story, its other part contained the impressions of three Moliners  – Alan Light and his two friends, all from Moline, Illinois – of their chance encounters with Michael and this is where the article begins to get interesting because it is where we begin to see Michael the way he really was:

Moliners say Jackson is ‘very shy’

By Jackie Chesser

Staff writer

There’s always a lot of hype and mystery surrounding famous people. Some of it’s accurate, while some is just rumor or speculation. Often, it’s hard to separate fact from fiction.

Superstar Michael Jackson is one celebrity who’s as well known for his eccentricities as he is for his musical talent.

There’s the one about him spending several thousand dollars on a hyperbolic chamber because he believed sleeping in the chamber would retard the aging process.

And then there’s the one about his futile bid to buy the remains of John Merrick, England’s famed Elephant Man, to add to his collection of deformed skeletons.

Jackson also supposedly has had nearly a dozen plastic surgeries to streamline his figures and reportedly received shots to lighten his skin.

He’s also known as a recluse who rents amusement parts in the off-hours.

But, despite his reputation, Jackson actually is a very nice and friendly person, say three Moline men who stayed at the same hotel as the superstar on a recent trip to Hawaii.

Jack Viviani, Don Liggitt and Alan Light saw Jackson seven times while vacationing with friends at the Kahala Hilton. “He was a very shy person basically,” said Mr. Liggitt.

“He kept putting his hand to his mouth when he talked.”

When they first saw him, Jackson was walking along the beach with a youngster who turned out to be the 9-year-old co-star of one of Jackson’s Pepsi commercials.

One of the group jokingly remarked that the man looked like Michael Jackson. Another friend insisted it was the star. A closer look verified it.

“It was a funny sight because, while it was about 85 degrees and very hot in the sun on the beach, this guy was wearing a long-sleeved red shirt with long black pants and shiny black shoes, along with a cap and sunglasses,” said Mr. Light.

When Mr. Liggett told him how much he liked his music, Jackson took off his sunglasses and said “in a high voice, “Thank you very much”, said Mr. Light.

Hoping to see the superstar again and get a picture of him, the men began carrying a camera with them. They were in luck. Later that night they saw Jackson and the youngster watching the live turtles, penguins and dolphins the hotel keeps on display in its lagoon.

After discussing the animals with him, they asked if he minded posing for a picture. Jackson agreed, but asked that they go to a more secluded area so the camera flash wouldn’t attract attention.

He posed for several photos, volunteering to pose for an extra one after blinking because of the flash in one photo.

“Jackson was very soft-spoken and polite,” said Mr. Light.

When Mr. Liggitt commented that it must be difficult for someone of his fame to go out in public without being mobbed, Jackson said he was used to it, that it had been like that ever since he could remember. Then he said, “if they knew I was out here now, I would be in trouble,” apparently referring to his bodyguards.

While they were chatting, an English teenager approached Jackson and he posed for several photos for her. Then he gave her and her parents an address in England where they could get complimentary tickets to a concert he will do there later in the year.

Wanting Jackson’s autograph but not having any paper, Mr. Liggitt asked him to a sign a $20 bill. Jackson declined, saying he’d gotten in trouble once for signing money. The English teen gave Mr. Liggitt some paper for Jackson to sign.

When a crowd started to gather, Jackson said he had to leave and he and the youngster raced over the walking bridge that connects the hotel to the lagoon.

Later that night the Moliners saw Jackson again and he told them he was in Hawaii for a Pepsi bottlers’ convention.

Although they saw him four more times in the next two days, they didn’t talk to him again. “Several times we looked up from the beach or the pool area and saw him standing on the balcony of his room, “said Mr. Light.

One time while watching Jackson sign autographs, they chatted with his bodyguard, who told them Jackson had reserved an entire amusement park that evening for himself and his young commercial co-star.

The guard, a hotel employee, said he’d guarded many stars, but that Jackson was one of the nicest he’d met so far.

When asked how Jackson looked after all his plastic surgeries, Mr. Liggitt said, “He looks just like a woman. He’s beautiful. And he has a very high pitched voice.”

Well, the media rule is evidently to start with a rumor and close with it too, so if they open with “nearly a dozen of plastic surgeries” and “shots to whiten his skin”, they should end with it too.

The truth is of course different – now everyone knows of Michael’s vitiligo and by the way this was the reason why he was on the beach in a long-sleeved shirt and long pants. And as to his plastic surgery, let me remind you of Dr. Richard Strick, a doctor who was helping the prosecution in the 1993 case and had access to all Michael’s medical records, who said five years after the above story that Michael actually had little plastic surgery per se.

For those who don’t know it: besides the cleft in his chin he had a nose job twice – first after he broke his nose during a fall from the stage, and the second was when the breathing problems arising  from the first operation had to be corrected (and this is when it was combined with cosmetic surgery). All the rest done to Michael’s head and face was a medical necessity – at least until 1993/94. Due to a discoid lupus diagnosed already after the surgery healing of his scars was a problem – the scars would turn into keloids and spread over the burned area of his head and apparently the same was true for his nose.

However accurate information about Michael was never the media’s strongest point, so out of the whole article it is only the Moliners’ account which is worthy of attention.

And the first thing that strikes us when we listen to these people is that Michael was very normal – very polite, very shy, very sweet and soft-spoken, very patient with others and even obliging to them.

He would run about the hotel and have innocent fun, and if someone wanted to have a photo with him he would agree to pose for the picture again and again, and only asked to move to a place where the flashes would not attract attention, and if he blinked he volunteered for another shot, and he readily associated with everyone and even took care of complimentary tickets for a girl from England whom he had just met and saw for the first time in his life.

Photo by Alan Light of MJ with a family from England

Imagine him giving complimentary tickets to Jordan Chandler on the first day they met – oh, they would have written volumes about it and it would have certainly become a separate point in the list of horrible accusations against MJ.

So the marvel of this article is that without really knowing it, it shows a huge contrast between the man Michael really was and the distorted picture standardly made of him by the media.

If the media portrayal of MJ had been true the three Moliners would not have been so amazed by the real Michael they met in Hawaii.

The local newspaper in Hawaii was a little more accurate in telling their story about Michael Jackson  – they even reported that his visit there was arranged by Pepsi:

By Wayen Harada

HE’S BAD: Michael Jackson raced through Kahal Mall yesterday morning with a bodyguard and a youngster in town – and those who saw Mr. Bad (a.k.a. Mr. Thriller and Captain EO) weren’t certain if it was, indeed, the rock superstar.

Jackson whisked through Liberty House, among other stores, and Richard Natto (a Liberty House employee when he’s not performing with Toma/Natto) not only got Jackson’s autograph, but managed to chat with him too.

“Real nice guy – tall, and with big feet,” is the way Natto remembers the quickie exchange.

Jackson was clad in a red shirt, black jacket, black pants, and red socks – his hair with the pomade look, his face whitish with makeup.

He was believed to be ensconced at the Kahala Hilton – and his quiet visit was arranged by Pepsi Cola, for whom he does those commercials…

If the other Michael also was here – that’s Michael J. Fox, also a Pepsi spokesman – he certainly maintained a very low profile.

Judging by all we’ve read about that visit to Hawaii the weekend was a busy one – MJ and Safechuck attended the Pepsi convention, explored every corner of the hotel including its beach and animals in the lagoon, posed for the photos with other hotel visitors and gave autographs to them, went on a trip to town and whisked over some shops there, toured an amusement park and even took a helicopter to see the area.

So it is no wonder now that Safechuck says in his lawsuit that “during the convention, the Plaintiff spent a great deal of time with Decedent and got to know him well, and their friendship deepened”.

Of course they got to know each other well, only the very same statement is speaking of another thing too – before that trip Safechuck didn’t spend a lot of time with Michael and didn’t know him well, and this even despite all Safechuck’s claims that Michael allegedly stayed in the Safechucks’ home prior to that!

THE DATE

The above information is also helpful for determining the exact date of the Hawaii event which may come in handy one day.

The newspaper article about the Moliners is dated Sunday February 14 according to Alan Light and we know that the trip to Hawaii was on a weekend and lasted for 3 days. In 1988 the closest weekend to February 14 was February 12-14 (Friday-Sunday), and though of course the trip could take place a week prior to that I highly doubt that the excited Moliners would wait a whole week before sharing their story.

If the weekend really fell on February 12-14, then only four days remained for Michael to finish up his rehearsals in Florida and on February 23 he was already performing in Kansas City on the next leg of his “Bad” tour.

Somewhere in between those four Florida days Safechuck claims to have stayed with Michael in a separate house he rented there, but a closer look at his lawsuit does not in the least support this statement and let me once again repeat why.

When it comes to details Safechuck’s story becomes a disastrous mess – in Hawaii his mother allegedly didn’t allow him into Michael’s room even when the boy was taken ill, however a couple of days later she allegedly okayed his separate stay in Michael’s house, and several weeks after that, during their March visit to New York the mother allegedly said no again to a possibility of him staying with Michael.

The timeline is totally unnatural, but all these illogical yes-and-no in the alleged behavior of Jimmy’s mother made me really wonder about this woman – and this is where Alan Light helped us a lot.

THE WOMAN

I found on the Internet a couple of pictures of Jimmy Safechuck’s mother and Alan Light confirmed that she was the mystery woman he saw together with Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck in Hawaii:

Jimmy Safechuck’s mother and father

• “After 27 years we know who the mystery woman is. Yes, that is definitely the same woman. Thanks.”

So what was previously a guess is now an established fact – the woman in all the pictures below is Jimmy Safechuck’s mother.

In the first photo she is with her husband. Her maiden name is Anderson and this name has something to do with the company where her husband is working.

Jimmy Safechuck’s mother (right) together with Michael Jackson and Lisa Minelli in March 1988. New York

In the next photo she is photographed with Michael Jackson and Lisa Minelli. This is when all of them attended the Phantom of the Opera on Broadway in New York on March 11, 1988.

And according to Alan Light’s pictures the very same woman accompanied Jimmy and Michael Jackson on that weekend trip to Hawaii.

Don’t know about you but my impression is that she is a very confident, determined and a no-nonsense woman who knows what she wants, and is far from someone crazy and psychotic like, for example, Janet Arvizo was.

And this means that the inconsistent stories of her no–yes–no again behavior are simply a not too talented attempt of James Safechuck to invent another of his lies.

Hopefully all of the above restores another short fragment in the life of Michael Jackson. Another true fragment of his life.

Now we can be definite about it – this woman is Jimmy Safechuck’s mother

“People don’t defend him because he could sing and dance, people defend him because his art speaks to his character. His art doesn’t lie.” – MJ fan [Nannoris]

This post is another of those unexpected sprouts from the MJ tree of truth we are growing here. The matter was crucial and urgent, so this post was also absolutely indispensable. Its subject was started in the comments to the previous article and was too serious to just let it go.

One of our readers (Terry Dutton) was shocked that Michael Jackson’s haters often say that they love his music though they don’t believe in his innocence and was asking our opinion how such a combination was possible at all.

I perfectly understand Terry’s shock at facing such a contradiction – for Michael’s supporters the above is simply ruled out. For us one thing is incompatible with the other and the discussion of why it is no problem for others resulted in a debate whether it is possible to love someone’s art in spite of thinking him capable of a crime.

The discussion showed the fundamental difference between Michael’s defenders and his accusers, and the conclusion turned out to be exactly the opposite from the one expected by the general public.

For Michael’s supporters his art and genius cannot be separated from his innocence and humanity – his art indeed speaks to his character and doesn’t lie, but if things had been different there wouldn’t be any support for him either.

I myself have zero tolerance to a point of view that Michael Jackson could be glorified if the allegations had been true (they are not!), and this seems to be a big surprise for those who are ready to excuse any alleged vice to a genius and then teach the public to eventually regard it as a “variation” of the norm.

Surprise-surprise, but it seems that Michael’s fans who are sure of his complete innocence are the biggest stumbling block standing in the way of the plans of these people.

‘NO, THANK YOU’ TO THEIR GENEROUS OFFER

Terry Dutton wrote about the readiness of some MJ’s detractors to accept the unacceptable:

I never comment, but today felt compelled to do so. What I want to add is that I am always flabbergasted that some of these so called “haters” and “detractors” always seem to have to mention that they love Michael Jackson’s music .. but… In my mind, how can you love Michael Jackson’s music but believe him to be such a reprehensible human being. Michael Jackson’s humanity, who he was, was reflected in his music, his art…so in my mind, how can that be? You listen to his music, but you must not be able to really hear it so to speak…..

We’ve also noticed this phenomenon and agree that there are indeed lots of MJ’s haters who first relentlessly trash him by calling him the worst possible criminal ever, but end it up with a most surprising conclusion – despite all the mud they have just slung at him they nevertheless generously allow the public to love Michael Jackson for his art.

This seeming contradiction really takes aback, especially if you are unaware of the behind-the-scenes strings the champions of these ideas are pulling.

However for us all this talk is no surprise – it has been going on for rather long now, at least since pedophile Thomas O’Carroll opened the trend in 2009, so we had time enough to realize who these people are and what goals they are pursuing by making so ‘generous’ an offer to Michael’s supporters – the offer we absolutely don’t need and whole-heartedly reject.

I didn’t want to shock Terry with my conclusions made long ago due to a very thorough study – they could seem too stunning for a person who hears about it for the first time, and therefore just suggested that he and other readers put two and two together and make a conclusion by themselves. My answer was:

Terry, this is an extremely important point!  For every normal person there are only two options – either we agree that Michael is an innocent man and we accept both him and his music, or if we think differently due to our ignorance (or stupidity) we accept neither him nor his music. There are only two options and I for one progressed from one to the other.

But this is the choice for normal people only.

Now who are the people that suggest the hybrid variant? The variant when they love his music (and suggest that we do the same) in spite of thinking him to be a reprehensible human being?

If you give it a serious thought, you will realize that these people are different. They think it possible to love a man irrespective of his sexual abuse of children. And by promoting this idea they are teaching others to love a child abuser for various reasons – because he is talented, nice, clever, handsome, can’t help himself, was also abused, etc.

Just make one more logical step from this point and you will realize who these people are.

Did you guess?

Though I wasn’t sure that I made myself clear enough the reaction of another reader showed that I did. A certain JamieT wrote to us the following:

Is that true though Helena?

Is Picasso’s vicious philandering and adultery, resulting in two of his women going mad and another two committing suicide, a barrier to the masses enjoying his art?

Do people enjoying The Jungle Book have a second thought about Rudyard Kipling’s vile racism?

Are the hundreds of thousands of people who flock to view Woody Allen’s latest offering, Irrational Man, promoting or condoning his molestation of his stepdaughter?

Did not millions of people enjoy the writings of Oscar Wilde even though he was a homosexual when it was considered against God and Law?

By listening to and enjoying Are You Not Alone, a brilliant song from the HIStory album, does that mean we agree with R Kelly’s abuse of underage girls?

When we attend The Ring do we even give a second thought to Wagner’s despicable anti-semitism?

While reading Madame Bovary does it cross our mind that Flaubert paid to have sex with young boys?

Do not tens of thousands of people every year marvel at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel even though Michaelangelo was a pedophile?

Do we even care that Dickens made the life of his wife and children a total misery whilst we digest Oliver Twist?

This is neither a message in support of the above nor a condemnation of Michael. I am merely pointing out the folly of your logic. The truth is, bad people do make good art and there is no way around it. So even if Michael was found to be guilty of some heinous crime (highly unlikely I know, but just for arguments sake), his brilliance and talent will continue to be celebrated by the world.

It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone who hates the sin but loves the sinner is somehow nefarious or immoral, and falls into the trap of dismissing possible allies as haters. That isn’t fair to them or Michael’s talent. You should be more careful how you put things.

The above sounded as an offer of help from an “ally” who is ready to glorify Michael for his brilliance even in case he had been a “sinner”. And while I was only preparing to explain that no offers like that will be accepted here, my co-admin Susannerb already answered JamieT covering each of his points with incredible knowledge and precision:

@JamieT: Oh come on, your examples are ridiculous and absolutely far-fetched and fallacious. Most of your examples are 1. just allegations and/or 2. no crimes.

Picasso may have behaved immoral, but flirting and adultery are no crimes. Mankind is used to it.

Rudyard Kipling was a freemason and had a very conservative world-view, but experts don’t regard him as a racist. T. S. Eliot didn’t see any justification for this allegation.

In Woody Allen’s case most people don’t believe in his guilt, so why should they reject his work? He was never convicted, though the media should have looked at the case more carefully.

Oscar Wilde was a homosexual, so what? This is no crime nowadays, so why shouldn’t people appreciate his writings? And he was not embraced by his contemporaries – he was thrown in jail where his health was ruined, and he died as a poor man at 46.

Kelly was never convicted as well, he was acquitted from his charges, his alleged victim denied abuse.

Richard Wagner is a controversial composer who may have been an anti-Semite, but anti-semitism is widespread on earth and not a crime like many other political and social views. I personally don’t listen to Wagner for exactly that reason (and because I don’t like his ostentatious music)

Flaubert had relationships with women. He apparently told himself about relationships with female and male prostitutes, but there is no proof they were underage.

Charles Dickens may have left his wife and kids, but we know that he always took care of her financially and provided her with an allowance in his will.

Michelangelo a ped-le? I never heard that and there is definitely no such evidence. Even if part of his art is regarded as homo-erotic, this has nothing to do with ped-lia.
In addition, I assume that you mistake Michelangelo Buonoarroti (who created the famous ceiling in the Sistine Chapel) for another Michelangelo: Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio is the one some people suggest to have been homosexual and have had an interest in young boys (he created for example the painting “Amor Vincit Omnia” ). But this is also rejected by experts because there is no proof of it. And he is a different artist, not the famous Michelangelo our MJ loved because of his art.

Wow, I would say Helena’s comment lured out exactly one of those she was talking about. Your speech makes clear where you come from: You only use words like “vicious”, “vile” and “despicable” for bad human behavior and opinions, but not for a crime like sexual abuse or ped-lia. You call it a “sin” and the “sinners” possible allies? We call it a “crime” and “criminals” and we regard them as the scum of the earth. And none of it has any connection to Michael Jackson.

Same as for Susannerb the allegations about Michelangelo came as a complete surprise to me, and while I checked up how come so bold an accusation could be made so easily and so confidently too, the conversation between Susannerb and our new “allies” continued.

This time a reply arrived from a certain PanWise and his condescending and derogatory manner showed that the rejection of their “helping hand” is not to be tolerated by these people. If you don’t agree with their acceptance of art even from a criminal you will be named “melodramatic” and “juvenile” and likened to an immature adolescent.

Moreover you will be accused of denying the alleged criminal the right to have “flaws” and be seen as human:

Stop being so melodramatic susannerb. JamieT is no more a p..phile than (presumably) you are. A juvenile attack such as yours is sadly starting to surface as a pattern in the MJFam. It’s unfounded nasty slurs and insults which have made people like Joe Vogel, Willa Stillwater and Susan Fast become exasperated and disgusted with large sections of the fan base, and want to give up their excellent work on Michael Jackson which would be a huge shame. Just stop it.

The point that JamieT made stands in spite of your dissembling. Bad people do make good art. Are we so afraid of Michael Jackson becoming human? Laura Miller recently wrote a post for salon.com which, even though it was about authors, applies equally well to any area of the arts. She bemoans the fact that we see in authors we love the exemplary traits of their writing, as well as believing the sanitized version of their lives presented to us.

Still, there’s much to be said for getting past this form of hero worship. Most writers, like most people, are a mixture of the reprehensible and the admirable. Our own personal lives require that we learn to love people flaws and all. When you idealize someone, you can’t truly know him or her, and that makes real, adult love impossible.

Most people begin figuring out how to do this in their teens. It’s not an easy transition. Suddenly, every bad quality in our parents — people who were like gods to us as children — becomes a glaring, intolerable betrayal. They must be repudiated! We don’t realize until years later that this is the first step on the long road to seeing our parents as they really are and forgiving them for being human.

Similarly, needing to believe that your favorite author lived in an exemplary way, embodying all the virtues of his best work, is an adolescent desire, passionate but ultimately unfair. Learning the truth is disillusioning at first, but enlightening in the end. Part of the sadly underrated process of growing up is realizing that people, the world and life are no less beautiful and amazing for being imperfect.

My love for Michael is realistic. I won’t take away his humanity just because it’s politically incorrect in the fan base to admit to his many flaws. That is not me saying that Michael was a bad person, far from it. He was human.

This “realistic” love for Michael Jackson is an interesting euphemism for accepting the artist even in case the worst lies about him had been true (which they aren’t!).

When you listen to these arguments you can almost see the pedophilia advocates crawling into your homes and comfortably settling themselves in your armchairs. This smooth invasion is taking place also through such underhanded tricks like reducing Michael’s defendants to immature teens while they themselves are presented as wise adults who are already tired to wait for the rest to grow up and get “enlightened” too.

To tell you the truth we here are also far from spring chickens and the fact that these people are aiming at a younger generation is certainly not lost on us.

Their appeal to the young is indeed where the main danger is. They know that millions of Michael Jackson’s present supporters love him not only for his genius but for being a great and innocent human being in the first place and a martyr who suffered for his love of people, trust in human goodness and thinking of mankind better than it is.

But what is clear to us will probably not be that clear to a younger generation, and this is who these so-called new MJ “allies” are primarily targeting – they hope to mold the thinking of the young into a different pattern which will allow both doubting Michael’s innocence and admiration of his art, thus allowing them to eventually look at his alleged “flaws” as something unimportant.

If this were ever to happen it would be a disaster – for Michael Jackson and mankind.

Susannerb was again quick to react to the unwanted “ally” who was expressing these views. Her reply was absolutely fantastic in its clarity and inspiration:

Interesting, PanWise, how you lump things together. So to you being a ped-le is the same as having flaws or being human? No, you mix things up deliberately or don’t get the point. Where did I say MJ had no flaws? I am aware of every flaw MJ had, and I even love his flaws because it makes him human. But the accusation of being a ped-ile is something completely different. And whatever you mean with a “bad person”, it is even something different than that.  I very well can listen to the music or love the art of a person with flaws, because this even may be part of his creativity. But I cannot love the music of a ped-ile, it’s impossible because it is one of the worst crimes. And I am convinced that such a person would not be able to create wonderful, positive, uplifting music for the benefit of mankind, like MJ did. It’s not in their DNA.

It’s hypocritical that you mention Vogel, Stillwater and Fast because their “disgust” with MJ fans goes into a completely different direction and you mix up things here the same way. Stop using their good names for your agenda! We are not talking about flaws here, and you know it!
If you love Michael Jackson, why do you defend his haters who say they “love Michael Jackson’s music .. but…”, as Terry Dutton said? Helena was talking about people who “love his music … in spite of thinking him to be a reprehensible human being” and who “think it possible to love a man irrespective of his sexual abuse of children” – and this is what you defend? Stop trying to convince us that this is normal!

When Susanne said that “It’s not in their DNA” she hit the nail on the head. Rotten hearts are indeed unable to create the wonderful and uplifting music and lyrics benefitting mankind like Michael Jackson did.

Music is a gift from the heavens and this is where they never enter and cannot even get a glimpse of, while Michael Jackson’s mind and heart were actually residing there – but those who don’t even have a concept of it will never understand.

And the exclamation “We are not talking about flaws here, and you know it!” is again very much to the point. What they are trying to do is pass off an alleged perversion for just a flaw and their zeal in promoting the idea shows that it is a strategy and is absolutely not a chance mistake.

The ultimate goal of these two guys’ pompous texts is to convince people that “no one is perfect” and that sexual corruption of children is just another of those human “flaws”. And by confusing people’s minds and calling it just a flaw they pave the way for its acceptance and all their talk around the subject has just one goal in mind – teaching people to take the rotten for something healthy and normal.

In reply to JamieT’s statement that “bad people do make good art and there is no way around it” I explained that we perfectly understand what hell they are trying to take us to:

The essence of the question is – HOW BAD should an artist be for his art to become unacceptable for others because they are simply unable to look into what he “created” or are totally unwilling to?

For every stage of society the margin will be a different one, so all of it boils down to what is accepted in society and what is not.

Now there is a social acceptance for adultery and homosexuality (though it has not always been so), and sometimes even murder – when it is self-defense or accident, for example. As soon as the society agrees that something is at least possible the art created by these people is no longer rejected either. And though their deeds may still give a certain coloring to the perception of their art, it does not make people reject it – because the phenomenon itself has begun to be accepted.

So what if the painter was a drunkard? Many of them are. So what if the rock singer was a womanizer? In some way it only makes him more attractive. So what if the composer took drugs? Well, it might even give a new dimension to his music…

When the society accepts something it doesn’t mean that it approves of it, but it means that it tolerates it and the deeds previously considered totally immoral now fall into the category of “things happen”.

So when you say that an artist can be loved and appreciated even despite him being a child abuser the essence of your idea is actually making pedophilia acceptable for the society and making people tolerant to it.

It is as simple as that.

Will you be able to love the art of a cannibal? Or appreciate the music created by a sadist? If there ever comes a time when people “appreciate” it, it means that human civilization has come to an end and human beings ceased to be human. Because human beings will simply throw up at a mere thought of what could be the “inspiration” for this kind of art.

Same with ped-lia which is overthrowing the principal law of nature and life in general – protection of the small, innocent and helpless and bringing them unharmed into an adult life.

I’m writing this not to allow the above activity of pedophilia activists (or people already brainwashed by them) to take us unawares. We should be prepared for what they are doing to Michael Jackson and via their horrid interpretation of him to human values in general.

Their method is to involve people in the discussion first and in the process envelope the subject with so many learned words that people eventually don’t know what to think and whom to side with, and this is when the natural barrier to crimes against a child may start to get eroded.

And who can be a better field for the discussion than the poor Michael Jackson? He was innocent, but his life is indeed the most convenient ground for toying with all sorts of ideas, and his charisma and life-long unjustified persecution give these people all necessary tools for pushing their agenda and even playing victim, hypocritically sympathizing with the nightmare Michael had to live in.

Actually the only thing they need to do is to seed doubt about Michael’s innocence in people’s minds and the rest of the job will be done by his art and genius. And this is the whole idea of their project.

In the battle between doubt and admiration for his art the art will naturally win, but doubt will unfortunately also sneak in, thus making a crack in the door for real child abusers who will take advantage of it reasonably counting on an opportunity for themselves too.

But in order to achieve this goal they first need to load the innocent Jackson with their own guilt and only then use him as a Troyan horse for their own jubilant entry.

In the same way parasites know that they have no future unless they penetrate (and ultimately ruin) the body of a much larger and healthy victim, and in this case the name of the victim is Michael Jackson.

THEY PLANNED IT LONG AGO

If you think that the above observations are far-fetched or ungrounded, we can produce proof that it was a pedophilia lobby who contributed most to smearing Michael Jackson’s good name.

The person who started it all – Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA attendee who simultaneously worked as Diane Dimond’s “best source” – was quite open about the plans of pedophiles to use MJ as their poster boy and spoke about it long before the Jordan Chandler disaster, triggered off by the same Gutierrez.

Gutierrez admits that he attended a “secret conference” calling himself an “undercover agent” there. In reality it was a NAMBLA convention and he was there as its member or guest  [screenshot from the May 2006 GQ issue].

Previously I thought that it was all we had from Gutierrez about the plans of NAMBLA people against Jackson.

But life is full of surprises and when our commentators recently reopened the subject I recalled that Gutierrez’s book had an epilogue where he expressed his pro-pedophilia views which suspiciously coincided with the arguments of our correspondents.

And you know what I found there? A detailed description of the NAMBLA plans against Michael Jackson with Gutierrez even stating the exact time when they openly started to smear Michael!

The campaign began as early as 1989 in their so-called information bulletin which suddenly announced that Jackson “had a sexual attraction for children” and expressed their satisfaction that their “cause” was receiving attention through so famous a personality like MJ. This was four years before the Jordan Chandler event and the idea of the bulletin was naturally to slander him and send the lie running round the world.

The point that catches the eye here is that they put Michael Jackson’s name on their front page and it testifies to their scam against him like nothing else does.

Of course they knew that Michael was innocent. This mafia-like organization never outs their own people – it would be equivalent to the worst of betrayals and a sheer suicide for the “movement”. So the names of real pedophiles are always kept a closely guarded secret and even at their conventions where they see each other face to face they all go by aliases only and none of them know each other’s true names as the FBI agents who infiltrated the organization report it (for details see this post please).

But Michael was not one of them and sacrificing his good name was absolutely no problem for these people. The whole idea of the project was to seed as much rumor about him as possible and this is why his name was meant to be told.  The goal was to slander the innocent and this was the reason for their publication.

They themselves preferred to stay in the shade while Michael Jackson was put out there for the media outcry and public indignation – the fate and comfort of the guilty did matter, while the crucifixion and ruin of the innocent did not.

And unless we realize that they didn’t give a damn about his fate it would be impossible to understand why they were throwing under the bus the one who was supposedly their most prized treasure, all the while keeping their own precious identities secret.

In his epilogue Gutierrez says:

The North American Men Boy Love Association (“NAMBLA”) is a group that approves of consentual sexual relations between men and boys. N A M B L A is pleased that the topic of pedophilia has attracted so much attention through such a famous personage as Michael Jackson. The organization spoke openly in its newsletter about Jackson’s sexual attraction toward children four years prior to the accusation in the Jordie Chandler case.

The publication reported the names of Jackson’s new friends and their travels with him.

Well, if they reported all his travels with his friends they must have been already spying on Jackson!

Let’s stop our thoughts from further racing and carefully collect the pieces we already know. At moments like this the various parts of a puzzle can suddenly come together and this is probably one of such moments.

PUTTING THE PUZZLE TOGETHER

1. From those two magazines with Gutierrez’s interviews we know that in 1986 the pedophilia lobby already wanted to turn the innocent Jackson into their “poster boy” and this is when Gutierrez started working against MJ.

The 1986 NAMBLA convention he attended in Los Angeles was an international one so there is every reason to believe that members from other countries were also involved and charged with the same task. Ped-le Rodney Allen from Canada (another of Diane Dimond’s sources) could easily be one of them.

Three years after the convention, in 1989 their information bulletin already said that they were “pleased” with the then state of affairs regarding Michael Jackson, i.e. their smear job against him. The fact that pleased them most was that they attracted attention to their “cause”(so this was one of the first goals).

However at that time it was still wishful thinking because the general public was of a totally different opinion of Michael Jackson despite these people’s claims. Actually their real smear work started with that information bulletin which was an open call against Michael. Though of course those three years (1986-89) were not spent in vain – all this time they had been actively spreading rumors about him, and the first person tirelessly working on it was Gutierrez.

Considering that since that moment four more years passed before Jordan Chandler’s case erupted in 1993, all in all the pedophilia lobby was working for at least seven years on taking the unsuspecting Jackson into their orbit and load on him everything they themselves were guilty of.

And mind you, these conclusions arise from the information they are providing to us themselves.

2. To spy on Jackson they were to establish contacts with the opportunistic maids, bodyguards and probably some people in the music industry and this job was done by Gutierrez who entered every crack in Michael Jackson’s household and formed a friendship with every Spanish-speaking maid and bodyguard in his surrounding. And again we know it from what he is telling us himself.

The 2006 GQ article says that he started to strike up friendships with as many current and former Jackson’s associates as he could and being Latino himself helped:

“For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA (personal assistant), Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.”

His book says that in addition to Blanca Francia and Orietta Murdock Gutierrez’s contacts stretched to the Neverland Five group, the maids in Michael’s house in Encino and Norma Salinas in Evan Chandler’s home, and lots of others including the parents of all children Michael was friends with.

Many of his “best” sources were guided by Gutierrez at every stage of the project – whether they were still working for Jackson or were already fired by him for stealing, etc. and filing lawsuits against him for unfair dismissal.

It is extremely interesting to find out from the author’s notes in VG’s book that the person instrumental in making him win the confidence of those Latinos was a Chilean Mario Kreutzberger,  also known as Don Francisco, a very popular television host of “Sabado Gigante” (Giant Saturday) on the American TV.

This show originated in Chile but in 1986 was moved to the US and from then on has been broadcast from Florida by the Hispanic Univision TV for the many-million American and South American Spanish-speaking audience.

Mario Kreutzberger aka Don Francisco and his Sabado Gigante show [Wilfredo Lee/AP]

He also says:

“My thanks to the animator of “Sabado Gigante,” Mario Kreutzberger, not only for inviting me on his show on three occasions to expose my investigations, but also for being a source of reassurance and confidence for the many witnesses”

Now what the hell does that mean?

It means that the highly influential Don Francisco who is also worth $100 million helped Gutierrez to win confidence of all those Spanish-speaking maids, assistants, bodyguards and whatnot, and that he “reassured” them that what they were doing against Michael Jackson was okay.

It could have been done through letters of recommendation for Gutierrez, telephone calls and possibly even money. And the crucial factor here is Mario Kreutzberger is extremely popular among the Spanish speaking residents of the US and a person whom they fully and unconditionally trust (he also runs a Teleton in Chile to raise funds for disabled children).

Don Francisco was “a source of reassurance and confidence” for Gutierrez’s sources –  confidence in Gutierrez, of course

And when all those maids saw Gutierrez on three of Kreutzberger’s programs their last doubts must have fallen off by themselves – they turned into Gutierrez’s best friends and went out of their way to cooperate with him in his work against Jackson.

I’m saying it not to justify them but to solely put the puzzle together and explain why it was so easy for Gutierrez to win these people’s confidence and do his smear job against Jackson.

So now that Mario Kreutzberger is closing (in September 2015) his Sabado Gigante show after running it for 53 years we must thank him not only for the entertainment he provided each Saturday to a multi-million Hispanic population of the US, but also for his participation in the ruin of Michael Jackson, as Gutierrez reveals it.

3.  Those seven years of constant spying against Jackson were also evidently the period when pedophile Rodney Allen found access to Michael’s Neverland and was able to draw a detailed plan of the house for one of the boys whom he later trained to tell lies about Jackson.

As you remember this 1995 project went nowhere as the Canadian police nipped it in the bud – which drew a wail of disappointment from Diane Dimond who had been in long correspondence with Rodney Allen and was hoping for a good scandal.

4. Those seven years before 1993 were also evidently the time when the two books haters so much like to talk about (“Boys will be boys” and “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”) found their way into Michael’s Neverland. During the 1993 raid they were taken from a locked file cabinet in his closet and were admitted into evidence twelve years later, at the 2005 trial.

Nothing could be easier than planting those books through some opportunistic maids or even the above Rodney Allen – if he knew Neverland well enough to draw a detailed plan of the house, he surely attended it in his personal capacity too and could have left there anything he liked.

A quick reminder about those books and why they were most probably planted in Michael’s home.

• “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” was a gift from a fan. This was clear from the inscription it carried: “To Michael from your (heart symbol) fan Rhonda…XXXOOO.” The notation “1983 Chicago” also appeared on the page.
• The other, “Boys Will Be Boys,” contained the following note on the flyleaf: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.” The note was signed “MJ” in Mr. Jackson’s hand. The inscription was certainly meant for someone else, as people don’t sign books for themselves, but for some reason this book still remained in Michael’s home.

“Boy: the photographic essay” included photos from the set of Lord of flies movie

The Associated press reported:

“The books, which included a number of pictures of nude boys swimming, running, playing, and jumping, were seized by Los Angeles detective Rosibel Smith [Ferrufino] from a locked cabinet in the singer’s bedroom during the 1993 child molestation investigation”.

I remember reading an article which said that when Michael was informed about those books and where they were found he was very much surprised to hear about it.

However the most interesting point is not even the books themselves or the locked file cabinet but the fact that the person summoned by the police to open it was Blanca Francia who had not been working in Neverland for two years by then.

In 1993 Michael Jackson’s new maid was Adrian McManus but Detective Rosibel Ferrufino nevertheless testified that the cabinet was opened by Blanca Francia, the maid who left Michael’s employment in 1991.

I wonder how the police knew who had the key. And it is even more interesting to know why Blanca Francia kept the key from Michael Jackson’s cabinet in her home after she stopped working for him and was away from Neverland for two years.

Are we to understand that the file cabinet was locked all this time and was waiting for the good old Blanca Francia to come one day and open it to the police?

Only God and Blanca Francia know the answer to these chilling questions – and probably the NAMBLA people too.

5. Thinking about their plan regarding Michael Jackson I also suddenly recollected the recorded telephone conversation between Dave Schwartz and Evan Chandler where Evan said that everything was going according to plan and it was not just his and there were other people involved in it:

• “Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved“

What a strange occurrence again. So there was actually a plan? And it was about turning Michael’s life into a massacre, as we remember? And there were even some other people involved in it? Then who were those remarkable people who planned that massacre, I wonder?

“A VICTORY FOR ALL OF US”

In his epilogue Gutierrez someone mysteriously says that Jackson was a “hope” for boy-lovers and quotes them as saying that his “victory could be a victory for all of us”.

He also reveals that three months after the accusations (sometime in November-December 1993) NAMBLA wrote a cover story about Jackson again where they “unwittingly” hurt Jackson by associating him with their organization.

In the context we are describing here the word “unwittingly” sounds especially farcical and absurd:

“Three months after the accusations were made public, the magazine dedicated its cover story to Jackson. The article contains strong statements which unwittingly hurt Jackson by associating him with that organization of pedophiles. They wrote:

• “Jackson is a hope in a society that condemns us. A victory for Jackson can be a victory for all of us. What is the big deal in this case? When we think that the boys had a good time with Michael even in a sexual way.”

A victory? What victory are these people talking about if Michael was in the midst of a horrible scandal, was barely alive and his good name, life and career were nearly ruined?

The probable answer is that they regarded the hysteria around Jackson as the beginning of their victory that could ultimately pave the way for their acceptance in the society. Michael Jackson was a sort of a sacrificial lamb for them and the more he suffered the better it was for these people as his hardships were probably even meant to evoke sympathy with people.

A more preferable variant was most probably even his untimely death. They would have labeled him a martyr – who fell for their cause of course – and his art, genius and charisma would have done the rest of the job.

What’s obvious is that clearing Michael of suspicion was absolutely not in their interests. So much work has been done for convincing everyone that he is “one of them”, and now all of it is suddenly ruined by Jordan’s description found inconsistent with those damned photos and Michael Jackson proving himself innocent?

No way, boys, this couldn’t be tolerated, and since the first attempt was only half a success, the efforts had to be doubled to bring it to a logical end.

And this is what they indeed did – in 1995 came an (unsuccessful) scam from Rodney Allen that was followed by some ridiculous letters from anonymous people to the FBI to check up on Michael’s train journeys and past telephone conversations with a certain Terry George.

Gutierrez also wrote to the FBI to check up whether they had anything on Jackson from some Mormon agent who allegedly investigated Michel in the 80s, but was disappointed to know that they didn’t. However if there were no facts they had to be invented and here came the non-existent video tape of MJ “molesting” his nephew which landed Gutierrez and Diane Dimond in a lawsuit which MJ won in 1997 and this more or less shut them up for a time being.

However one book of lies followed another and all these efforts were crowned with a huge Arvizo case where the same old gang took part again – Blanca Francia and the Neverland 5, and it was again Gutierrez who served as their main consultant and was preparing programs first on NBS and then on ABC together with another big MJ friend – Martin Bashir.

In short once they cut their teeth into Michael Jackson they never let him go.

GUTIERREZ’S END IN THE EPILOGUE

In the epilogue of his book Gutierrez couldn’t resist to express his views on the past and possible future of his favorite subject and for a start gave away his own sexual inclinations by the following statement:

Jackson’s career and fame have severely diminished. For many people around the world, he is either a pedophile or pervert.

What a jaw-dropping statement. Why either-or? Isn’t pedophilia the embodiment of perversion? We know that it is, but apparently Gutierrez doesn’t think so and doesn’t even notice how tale-telling his slip of the tongue is.

The next thing he does is showing the way he twisted Michael Jackson’s words and turned them into their parody. For example, whenever Michael spoke of children Gutierrez translated it as boys and this is how he created many of his myths:

During a separate interview, Jackson made comments which, with hindsight, are a revelation to readers of his sexual preference for boys:

“One of my favorite pastimes is being with children, talking to them and playing with them. Children know a lot of secrets and it is difficult to get them to tell. My most creative moments have almost always come when I am with children. When I am with them, the music comes to me as easily as breathing. When I’m tired or bored, children revive me. Two brown eyes look at me so profoundly, so innocently, and I murmur: this child is a song. Children are incredible.”

Then Gutierrez makes himself ridiculous by describing things Michael never possessed – “a statue of a naked boy for half a million” for example, or life-sized mannequins that are “nude or dressed in  sensual undergarments” only:

Some life-sized mannequins in MJ’s possession

“Jackson’s desire for boys has led him to surround himself with constant reminders of them. He has purchased a statue of a naked boy for almost $ 500,000.00. The paintings and drawings in his home are all of children.

“The mannequins were nude except for some sensual undergarments”

He has life-sized mannequins in his bedroom which are nude, except for some sensual undergarments.”

And finally Gutierrez proceeds to tell us how well accepted boy-lovers were in some ancient cultures and we have an acute feeling that he is nostalgic for those blessed barbaric times.

Sorry for repeating it in full:

“The pedophiles in the organization consider Jackson as one of their own. They perceive him as an idol who has put into practice what others dream of.

Historians report that the topic of pedophilia is not new. In some civilizations and cultures it was considered normal for heterosexual men, married or single, to have sexual relations with children, such as in ancient Greece, Persia, medieval Japan, and among native Americans. The Samurai taught boys the art of fighting with a sable, how to ride a horse, and how to make love, practicing amongst themselves. Twentieth century Arabic poems show that a Muslim society found satisfaction with slaves boys and boy prostitutes at parties. Another example is the city of Zambia in New Guinea. Until 1940, adult males penetrated the anuses of boys with their penises prior to adolescence and inserted their semen to give them “masculinity.” This ritual of depositing their sperm inside the boys was considered “better” and “healthier” than their own mother’s milk.

Important historical figures have been suspected or identified as being pedophiles engaging in sexual activity with minors, including: Socrates, Plato, Michelangelo, Franz Schubert (whose partner was Johann Michael Vogl when Vogl was 13). Nero publicly married a 12 year-old boy named Spartus, who inherited his wealth. Leonardo Da Vinci left written testimony of his relationship with two minors. One was Giacomo Coproti, whom the sculptor called “Salai” (the “devil” in an Italian folk tale), since the 10 year-old stole from him. They slept together and all of the artist’s attention was focused on the boy. The artist used Salai as a model for his sculptures and paintings. Da Vinci spoke of him as a beautiful child to whom he gave all his love.

The motion picture industry is at times a messenger for pedophile’s love stories. The movie “A Man Without A Face,” directed by and starring Mel Gibson, was based on the 1973 novel by Isabelle Holland, who told the story of a lover of children and his young partner. In the novel, the physical relationship between a boy and his older friend is clear and, furthermore, the boy is purported not to have been psychologically affected by the sex. The result on screen was quite different. The film version does not refer to sex between the boy and his older friend. William Hurt did a movie in London based on the story of another sexual lover of underage boys. The film, “Second Best,” was based on a book written by David Cook. The same thing occurred in terms of the difference between the novel and the motion picture version. In the novel, it is clear that the single, almost 40 year old man is sexually attracted to the 10 year old boy, and seeks to adopt and spend intimate nights together in a sleeping bag. Yet in the movie the relationship is depicted as a healthy desire by an adult to adopt and form a family.

Pedophiles fall in love, they become obsessed and feel desire, just like a heterosexual or homosexual persons. In most cases the relations between “couples” don’t last for long, since when the child grows, the pedophile loses interest, at least in sexual terms. Now that we better understand the sexual drive some adults feel for children we are able to comprehend more completely Jordie and Jackson’s experience, a couple that loved intensely in a very erotic way.

The End

It is indeed the end – the end of Victor Gutierrez and others of his kind who first make up stories about innocent people and then project their own perversions on to them. Their minds are so twisted that no matter what comes their way they always see “boys”.

All people see a normal movie directed by Mel Gibson (who also directed “The Passions of the Christ”), but a boy-lover knows that it is about a ped-le – the original novel was about sex with a minor, who “wasn’t psychologically affected by it” as the author tenderly assures us.

And when a boy-lover sees another of those movies it is “clear” to him that the main character was sexually attracted to a boy, while the normal audience thinks it was a just a desire to adopt a child and form a family.

Did you ever think why these boy-lovers know what books these innocent movies were based on?

They know it because they read those books – this is why. We don’t read them and have no way to know, but for them it is their favorite reading and this is why they do.

Incidentally, Michael Jackson’s detractors also know all the photographers who made pictures of boys swimming and jumping in those two books found in Michael’s home and triumphantly reveal to us that some of them were boy-lovers too, making a conclusion that it is “proof of his guilt”.

But if seeing the photos of some boys on the beach without knowing a thing about the photographers who made them is enough “proof” for these people, then my congratulations go to those of you who were unfortunate enough to see the two movies mentioned above – you are ped-les too!

You wonder why???

Because the original books for those movies were supposedly about ped-les! And don’t even try to tell us that you didn’t know! None of your meek explanations will be accepted – you should have known what books those movies were based on!

And the same goes for Michael Jackson! He was also obliged to know the biography of every photographer who shot those children on the beach! If ped-lia advocates know them because they are in fact their favorite photographers, everyone else should know that too!

If you follow the logic of these madmen you will simply go insane. And these people are indeed mad – in the clinical meaning of the word. Wherever they look they see only ped-les. And their vision is so twisted that they throw into that class even Michelangelo, and over here Gutierrez and our own correspondents are in a touching solidarity with each other.

WHAT IT TAKES TO BE A GENIUS

Michelangelo was not a ped-le. He was most probably not a homosexual either though some people of his time thought him to be (he always vehemently denied it). He simply never married but with the amount of time and passion he put into his work he probably didn’t even need a marriage companion.

And no one would probably tolerate a spouse like him. Michelangelo didn’t mind the squalor in his home which no servant could tolerate for long and was famously unconcerned about his appearance, often sleeping in his clothes and boots.

Instead he was ready to lie for years on his back painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. At the age of 37 the rigors of the job left him with increasing infirmities forever after.

Michelangelo. Painter, Architect, Poet, Sculptor (1475–1564)

His face was disfigured – in his youth he received a blow on the nose from a fellow student probably jealous of his talent that left it permanently smashed.

“I gave him such a blow on the nose that I felt bone and cartilage go down like biscuit beneath my knuckles,” Pietro Torrigiano later bragged, “and this mark of mine he will carry with him to the grave.”

Critics say that “he had a contentious personality and quick temper, which led to fractious relationships, often with his superiors. This not only got Michelangelo into trouble, it created a pervasive dissatisfaction for the painter, who constantly strived for perfection but was unable to compromise.”

Michelangelo was a natural recluse. He was melancholic and introverted, but touchy and explosive. He lived a temperate life, and preferred to be alone “like a genie shut up inside a bottle”, contemplating death.

• “I am here in great distress and with great physical strain, and have no friends of any kind, nor do I want them; and I do not have enough time to eat as much as I need; my joy and my sorrow/my repose are these discomforts,” he once wrote.

He lived a very austere and, by every indication, chaste life. Some scholars love to talk about an incidence when a man once approached Michelangelo about taking his son on as an apprentice, telling him that boy could double as a willing partner in bed. But these scholars will never tell you that Michelangelo refused and sought to get the man fired from his job for having made the offer.

When he was 59 he wrote letters mentioning his strong attachment to a certain nobleman Tommaso Cavalieri who was 34 years his younger. Michelangelo insisted that their friendship was platonic – he believed that a beautiful body was the outward manifestation of a beautiful soul, and scholars are still debating whether it was homosexuality or a bittersweet longing by a childless and aging Michelangelo for a father-son relationship.

Michelangelo also wrote letters of love and admiration to a widow Vittoria Colonna whose intellect and piety made her stand out among the women in Michelangelo’s surrounding. She soon died and he was devastated.

Michelangelo’s poetry touches on everything from sex and aging to his overactive bladder (he bemoans a “drippy duct compelling me awake too early”). But many of his 300 poems are also about a human soul that can reunite with an almighty God through love and ecstasy, and about the one universal Truth connected to Earth.